On the Trinity:

[Infinityloop]

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

“Biblical Unitarians” are about as Christian as “Christian Spiritualists” - I don’t want to cause offence, but it’s true...

 

[Infinityloop]

“Biblical Unitarians” are about as Christian as “Christian Spiritualists” - I don’t want to cause offence, but it’s true...

Ah, another genetic fallacy, nice one.

Your statement is also incredibly false, as seen in this lecture from before.

 

[Infinityloop]

A great article:



One of the most unusual new doctrines introduced by Christianity was the Trinity: the idea that God, although he is one, also simultaneously exists in three persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – all of which are equal in power and glory, possess the same will, and are composed of the same divine substance. Although Christian theologians through the ages have fiercely debated the exact meaning of this doctrine, and although it is repudiated by both Judaism and Islam as polytheistic, the Trinity remains by far the most common way for Christians to reconcile their belief in the unity of God with their beliefs about the divinity of Jesus.

Although there are non-trinitarian denominations of Christianity and thus it cannot be said that all Christianity depends upon this doctrine, it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the Trinity forms the foundation for the beliefs of the great majority of Christian sects. Therefore, if it can be shown to be scripturally unsupported or inherently problematic, the position of these sects will be greatly weakened. This essay will attempt to show just that.

The former difficulty will be addressed first. Though church councils in the fourth century CE and beyond may have defined and clarified the concept of the Trinity for subsequent generations, if their conclusions cannot be shown to be based on the Bible, it must be concluded that they were simply inventing.

We first consider the issue of whether the Trinity can be found in the Old Testament. Even before examining the actual text, there is one fact that is well worth considering: as stated above, Jews do not, nor did they ever, believe in the Trinity. This should be seen as highly relevant, because if the Judeo-Christian deity exists and is indeed a trinity, why would he not tell his own chosen people that? If it was always his intention to redeem humanity in the person of Jesus, should he not have prepared the Jews for that by telling them ahead of time that he was three in one? For him to conceal this basic fact about his own nature for so long would only have confused them when it was finally revealed and increased the likelihood that they would reject Christianity as a false religion. (“Shadow of Turning” addresses this consideration further.)

An excerpt from, of all places, the work of a Christian apologist confirms this point:

“If [Jesus] had simply announced, ‘Hi, folks; I’m God,’ that would have been heard as ‘I’m Yahweh,’ because the Jews of his day didn’t have any concept of the Trinity. They only knew of God the Father – whom they called Yahweh – and not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.”
—Ben Witherington, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Zondervan, 1998. p.178.

Simple intuition would thus lead one to the conclusion that the Trinity is not supported by any verse from the Old Testament. This intuition is further supported by verses such as the following:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” —Deuteronomy 6:4
“I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.” —Isaiah 46:9
“See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me.” —Deuteronomy 32:39
“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” —Isaiah 45:5

Granted, Christian apologists will probably claim that even these verses, although they strongly affirm God’s unity and uniqueness, do not contradict the Trinity. But they certainly do not support it, either; as stated above, the Trinity is a doctrine utterly foreign to the Old Testament. And in any case, if these verses do not constitute a denial of the Trinity, then what would? How could these verses possibly have been written differently so that modern-day Christian apologists would accept them as claiming that God is one and not three? Would that even be possible, or is the Trinity, like many other religious ideas, designed to be impossible to disprove with any imaginable evidence?

As an aside, some Christian apologists occasionally claim the Trinity is supported by OT verses such as Genesis 1:26, in which God refers to himself in the plural. Even if such a translation is accurate (a claim which is debated, even by Christians), such a vague and cryptic reference in no way constitutes support for the entire convoluted doctrine of the Trinity, especially when set against strong claims of God’s absolute unity such as the ones presented above. A more plausible interpretation, in light of these verses, is that the use of the plural was intended to imply God’s addressing a “heavenly court” of angels. See http://www.outreachjudaism.org/genesis1-26.html, which cites Christian authors to this effect.

Moving on to the New Testament, we will find that scriptural support for the Trinity is equally thin. To start with, consider the strongest trinitarian verse in the NT:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” —1 John 5:7 (KJV)

This verse does indeed convey, if not a fully detailed explanation, at least a reasonable sketch of the Trinity as it is usually understood. Unfortunately, it is also a forgery – a very late interpolation to the original text – as even Christian apologists agree:

“[Jehovah’s Witnesses will] say, ‘That’s not in the earliest manuscripts.’ And that’s true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write.”
—Bruce Metzger, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ; Zondervan, 1998. p.84.

To be fair, Metzger and others do feel that the idea of the Trinity is supported by other NT verses. However, most of these are far less direct than the one quoted above. Consider several frequently cited candidates:

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” —Matthew 3:16-17 (KJV)
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” —2 Corinthians 13:14 (KJV)
“For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” —Colossians 2:9 (KJV)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” —John 1:1 (KJV)
“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” —John 5:23 (KJV)
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” —John 8:58 (KJV)
“[Jesus said,] I and my Father are one.” —John 10:30 (KJV)

To begin with, the first two verses, which are meant to suggest the Trinity by listing all of its members in close proximity, are highly vague. Certainly they do not even come close to stating that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all three distinct persons in one, or that they each separately possess all the characteristics of God. As such, they can offer only minimal and highly indirect support for this doctrine.

The verse from Colossians comes closer, but still misses the mark when it comes to supporting the entirety of trinitarian theology. It does not, for example, contradict “adoptionist” theologies in which the Son was not always a part of the godhead, but a human being who at some point in his life was imbued with divine power. It does not rule out theologies in which the Son is merely a different aspect or mode of God, rather than an entirely distinct person. It also does not rule out theologies in which the Son is a lesser emanation of the Father, a created being of similar divine substance but not equal in power or status. And it says nothing at all about the status of the Holy Spirit.

It is no coincidence that the next four quotes all come from the Gospel of John. Out of all the books in the New Testament, this one is by far the most explicit supporter of trinitarian-like doctrines, and if it were to be removed, there would be very little left in the Bible to hint at such an idea. However, even those verses do not go far enough to support the Trinity as it has come to be defined. The first such example, the Logos hymn from the opening of John, does not rule out the Son’s being either a different aspect of God or a lesser created being. (The following verse says that “without him was not any thing made that was made”, but this does not rule out the Son being the object of the very first creative act – participating but as the created rather than the creator – and then subsequently creating everything else.) The second, while it says the Son should be honored in the same way as the Father, again does not conflict with adoptionist theologies, nor those that view the Son as a different aspect or mode of God rather than a separate person, nor those that postulate the Son as a lesser emanation of the godhead – God’s emissary, to be honored by human beings just as they would honor God, yet not God himself. The third does not contradict any of these interpretations either; one could postulate that the divine essence that was manifested in Jesus existed before Abraham, without being the same as God. The fourth is also susceptible to these interpretations, as well as a pantheist interpretation in which everything that exists is one with God. And of course, none of these verses say anything at all about the Holy Spirit, which is a concept left curiously ill-defined by the Bible; at best, they support a duality, not a trinity.

Although they may establish, at minimum, the biblical existence of such entities as the Son and the Holy Spirit, such verses do not even come close to supporting the modern understanding of the Trinity. They do not support the modern beliefs that those two entities are co-eternal and uncreated and of the same substance as the Father; they do not contradict adoptionist beliefs that Jesus was not always God’s Son; they do not support the belief that the Son and the Holy Spirit are omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent; they do not support the belief that all three entities are truly God in and of themselves as opposed to mere emanations of the divinity, or conversely, that they are mere different aspects or modes of the same unified being. If the authors of the Bible had had a full-blown trinitarian theology in mind and had written with the intent of supporting that doctrine, it is remarkable how much they left out, compared to what they could have said.

By contrast, there are NT verses that do not lend themselves so easily to a trinitarian interpretation. Consider the following:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” —1 Timothy 2:5

This verse clearly suggests that Jesus is not God himself, but a man who mediates access to God. Or consider Colossians 1:15, which speaks of Jesus as “the firstborn of every creature” – in other words, a created being. This verse is supported by several that refer to Jesus as “begotten” – a notion that implicitly contains the notion of coming into existence – such as John 3:16. There are also verses that speak of things Jesus cannot do (Matthew 20:23, Mark 6:5) and things he does not know (Mark 13:32). If the Son is equal in divine status to the Father, these would seem to be problematic. Finally, consider John 14:28, in which Jesus claims that the Father is greater than him. Although trinitarian apologists have, of course, come up with explanations for these verses – usually involving complicated rationales about obscure concepts such as kenosis or the relative status of the three members of the godhead – the fact remains that they can fit at least as well, and in most cases better, into non-trinitarian interpretations.

In summary, as far as the New Testament goes, the idea of the Trinity is not wholly without scriptural support, but neither does scripture require it. A great deal of interpretation is involved either way. There are verses that can fit into a trinitarian framework (although that is not such a great feat, since as mentioned above, there are almost no imaginable passages that could not be). These same verses, as well as others, can also be fit into non-trinitarian frameworks. The NT evidence is simply not decisive one way or the other. However, what should be seen as more decisive is the complete absence of the Trinity from the Old Testament, as well as its basically irrational nature, discussed below.

Even beyond the question of scriptural support, we must ask the question of precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity means. Christians say that their religion is not polytheistic, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate gods but are in some way all the same being. But if this is the case, then what is it that makes the Christian god a trinity? In what way are the three distinct while at the same time remaining one?

The difference is not one of presence or extent; all three members of the Trinity are believed by Christians to be omnipresent. The difference is not one of power; Christians believe all members of the Trinity to be omnipotent. Nor is the difference one of knowledge; Christians believe all members of the Trinity to be omniscient. But what else can be the source of the distinction? Do the members of the Trinity have separate consciousnesses, so that their thoughts are different from each other? Do they have separate wills, so that their desires and preferences differ? If neither is the case, then in what sense are they distinct?

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trinity. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have separate consciousnesses or desires, then they are each separate gods, and there is no sense in which they are the same being. In that case, Christianity is polytheistic. But on the other hand, if the Son and the Holy Spirit have no separate consciousness or will from the Father, then they have no independent existence at all – they are merely instruments or tools through which God works to accomplish his will. One would not call a carpenter’s hammer a carpenter in and of itself, nor would one say that the carpenter was the same as his hammer. In this case, if the members of the Trinity have no separate consciousness, will or desires, then there is no Trinity at all – the whole doctrine is essentially just a convoluted way for God to talk to himself. Either way, the resolution is the same: the Christian divinity can be either one or three, but not both at the same time.

When trying to explain the meaning of the Trinity, Christian theologians often speak of it as a divine mystery that lies beyond full human comprehension. If this is true, it is strange that God, if he wanted us to understand and relate to him, would create us in such a way that a fundamental aspect of his nature would lie forever beyond our grasp. But a more important objection to such claims is this: If a claim is labeled beyond our ability to understand, then how are we supposed to tell if it is true? What assurance do theists have that the Trinity is a true fact about the world that is genuinely beyond our ability to comprehend, as opposed to a false claim invented by people whose illogical nature is protected from scrutiny by labeling it a mystery we aren’t intended to understand?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Ah, another genetic fallacy, nice one.

Your statement is also incredibly false, as seen in this lecture from before.

That’s fine @Infinityloop - you are welcome to your opinions. Christianity looks different from the inside (ie “ye must be born again”) than it does from the outside.

I have never met a born again “Biblical Unitarians” (after all, if Jesus was infinitely less than God, how could he represent or even dare to claim “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father”), and as such Biblical Unitarians fall into the sad group of folk who believe themselves to be Christians, like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses but have never really believed the Gospel. I am sorry this offends you.

 

[Infinityloop]

Christianity looks different from the inside than it does from the outside.

Oh yes @Red Sky at Morning, I know that from first hand experience

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Oh yes @Red Sky at Morning, I know that from first hand experience

Well @Infinityloop - If you had truly been a Christian at one point, you have a heavenly Father who is waiting at home like the father in the story of the prodigal son. It is easy to imagine we have all been just as we are now, but for me, I remember taking great offence at certain Christians a number of years ago and responding to that negative example by backing off into complete Hedonism, Materialism and (though I didn't know it) the principles of Dualism and Freemasonry. During this time, I had an ache inside that would not go away as I knew (but at the same time, worked hard to suppress the knowledge) that God was there, waiting for me.

In the end, life circumstances brought this prodigal back to the Cross, and I remember listening to this song with tears running down my face.

 

[Infinityloop]

Well @Infinityloop - If you had truly been a Christian at one point, you have a heavenly Father who is waiting at home like the father in the story of the prodigal son. It is easy to imagine we have all been just as we are now, but for me, I remember taking great offence at certain Christians a number of years ago and responding to that negative example by backing off into complete Hedonism, Materialism and (though I didn't know it) the principles of Dualism and Freemasonry. During this time, I had an ache inside that would not go away as I knew (but at the same time, worked hard to suppress the knowledge) that God was there, waiting for me.

In the end, life circumstances brought this prodigal back to the Cross, and I remember listening to this song with tears running down my face.

I didn't say that as a positive thing, I know exactly how you think, I know what it feels like to be a "Born-again Bible-believing Christian, saved by the lord Jesus Christ". You are also playing a bluff because you yourself have no idea what you even believe yourself, let alone know why you believe it in the first place.
Your post does give me ideas for further threads to make this week.

Btw, Christianity (especially the form of evangelicalism you follow) IS DUALISM (Satan vs Jesus), period. what a strange thing for you to mention that.


Let's roll the dice and see who really has faith.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I didn't say that as a positive thing, I know exactly how you think, I know what it feels like to be a "Born-again Bible-believing Christian, saved by the lord Jesus Christ". You are also playing a bluff because you yourself have no idea what you even believe yourself, let alone know why you believe it in the first place.
Your post does give me ideas for further threads to make this week.

Btw, Christianity (especially the form of evangelicalism you follow) IS DUALISM (Satan vs Jesus), period. what a strange thing for you to mention that.


Let's roll the dice and see who really has faith.

Dualism (in the sense I meant it) is living on the one hand as a follower of Jesus whilst in your heart cosying you to a sinful lifestyle.

You may be extraordinarily bright but you have (if you are honest) no idea of my relationship with the Lord, or the grounds on which I have faith in Him.

 

[Infinityloop]

You may be extraordinarily bright but you have (if you are honest) no idea of my relationship with the Lord, or the grounds on which I have faith in Him.

Lol, yet you think you have the ability to state this about other people of faith such as myself.

but you have no idea of my relationship with the Lord

And at that, I don't think you do either, clearly.

If all you can do is regurgitate a few catchphrases, I will repeat this. Because it is very obvious to those who have eyes.

Am I convinced about your sincerity? no, absolutely not. I think the man or woman behind the keyboard who types as "red sky at morning" is probably just an atheist posing as a Christian for a laugh. There is no way you're for real.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Lol, yet you think you have the ability to state this about other people of faith such as myself.

And at that, I don't think you do either, clearly.

If all you can do is regurgitate a few catchphrases, I will repeat this. Because it is very obvious to those who have eyes.

I have said before that I will leave you to your choice, much as it saddens me to do so.

As you have heard and rejected the Gospel, and dismiss and demean anyone who tries to discuss with you. Our interactions have concluded and I will no longer be responding with unwanted replies (I am telling you this in case you think I’m just being ignorant).

I have now set you on “block” because ultimately and in a far more final way, that is what will happen to those who spit in the Lord’s face and mock His sacrifice.

 

[Infinityloop]

I have said before that I will leave you to your choice, much as it saddens me to do so.

As you have heard and rejected the Gospel, and dismiss and demean anyone who tries to discuss with you, our interactions have concluded and I will no longer be responding with unwanted replies (I am telling you this in case you think I’m just being ignorant).

I have now set you on “block” because ultimately and in a far more final way, that is what will happen to those who spit in the Lord’s face and mock His sacrifice.

"I am sorry this offends you." haha (can sure as hell give it but can't take even a friendly criticism)

God bless you, even if you're just a bored troll. One day you'll set your life straight and find God, that day just isn't today it seems.


Note: "and dismiss and demean anyone who tries to discuss with you" - this is what I get from you, and other Christians literally every thread I make.

 

[Infinityloop]

Dualism (in the sense I meant it) is living on the one hand as a follower of Jesus whilst in your heart cosying you to a sinful lifestyle.

Anyway, for the onlookers. Did you notice how Red Sky At Morning just completely redefined what the word means to suit his aims there. Here are all of the meanings of Dualism in different contexts, none of them describe what he thinks it means

 

[seekinheart]

There are very positive notions of the trinity. For example.

Finally, although the doctrine of the Trinity belongs to revealed theology rather than to natural theology, we may ask if there are any positive arguments which might be offered on behalf of the plausibility of that doctirne. I close with an argument which a number of Christian philosophers have defended for God’s being a plurality of persons. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God.

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity | Reasonable Faith

“Let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring;...

www.reasonablefaith.org

 

[Infinityloop]

There are very positive notions of the trinity. For example.

Finally, although the doctrine of the Trinity belongs to revealed theology rather than to natural theology, we may ask if there are any positive arguments which might be offered on behalf of the plausibility of that doctirne. I close with an argument which a number of Christian philosophers have defended for God’s being a plurality of persons. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God.

A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity | Reasonable Faith

“Let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring;...

www.reasonablefaith.org

See, major difference of reasoning there.

You say: God is three because it/he needs to love himself.

We say: God infinitely "loves", and the universe itself is a direct expression of God's love. The universe is constructed of signs that point towards God, one aspect of our whole existence on this planet is the acknowledgement of that love, because God is one, a Unity of itself (Tawhid) and all God does is give and give endlessly.


But as for your general idea there though, the argument 'from love' does seem like a really odd thing to use as an argument for a particular theistic model of God.

I will get back to your post tomorrow morning...

 

[Infinityloop]

On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being.

I think you are limiting God, you are applying to God things you cannot know and beyond that things that simply don't make sense in the wider scope of your own religion.

If your religion actually said this in it's creation story (aka, if it rejected Genesis and what Genesis actually teaches regarding what you say) then maybe some merit could be found in your argument in exclusion to itself with it's premises.
But your argument does not logically align to the pre-Christian narratives at all.

As far as Judaism is concerned (God is Uniquely ONE, just like Islam), the Old Testament shows God investing itself in humanity, because it wants humanity to grow and prosper. Humanity disobeys, but God consistently shows forgiveness and starts over again after each time humanity fails.
God chose a special people to disseminate the universal truth of God to humanity, then to those people it became about themselves (Jews) rather than God. So God sent the messiah, but people turned the messiah into an idol and worshiped him over God. So God sent the final prophet to humanity to clarify unambiguously the Oneness of God and the salvation and love of The One God.

 

[Mr.Fishnet]

I don't like to use the word "Trinity". Its not a word used in the Bible. The "Godhead" (the word I prefer to use), is in the Bible. God is three persons in one according to the Bible. This confuses some people and they wonder how three can be one. Well in the Bible the word “one” does not always mean numerical quantity. Depending on the Scripture, “one” can often mean unity.

One example of this would be in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” “One flesh” here does not mean that a married couple melt into one human after their wedding, but rather they are to be united into one family.

Another example would be when Jesus prayed that the apostles would be one, saying, “And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.” (John 17:22- 23).

So God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united in their purpose of creation, of redemption, and saving man.

We see three distinct persons of God at Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3:16-17, “When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

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

Scripture tells us that the Godhead is three in one. This three-in-one not only created us, but they love us and devised an amazing plan to save a lost world from sin to restore us to His presence in paradise.

This is what we have to believe in as Christians.

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

This makes no sense, since when is God three in one? God isn't even human, God is above us all, he is ONE, no such thing as a "three in one" God..... There is no father or son or all that, THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Christian trinity really does not make any sense. This isn't some kind of supermarket deal "3 in 1"... I thought Christianity was a monotheistic religion, so how come you worship a three in one God or whatever that means. This kind of reminds me of Hinduism.....

 

[phipps]

This makes no sense, since when is God three in one? God isn't even human, God is above us all, he is ONE, no such thing as a "three in one" God..... There is no father or son or all that, THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Christian trinity really does not make any sense. This isn't some kind of supermarket deal "3 in 1"... I thought Christianity was a monotheistic religion, so how come you worship a three in one God or whatever that means. This kind of reminds me of Hinduism.....

This makes no sense, since when is God three in one? God isn't even human, God is above us all, he is ONE, no such thing as a "three in one" God.....

Not according to the Bible. The Bible is God's Word that He inspired by the Holy Spirit and in it, we are told there are three persons in the God head. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

There is no father or son or all that, THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. Christian trinity really does not make any sense. This isn't some kind of supermarket deal "3 in 1"..

I disagree. Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it wrong. You just don't understand it.

I thought Christianity was a monotheistic religion, so how come you worship a three in one God or whatever that means. This kind of reminds me of Hinduism...

Christianity is not like Hinduism which is pagan. For starters pagan gods are never united in anything. They have different roles and don't work together to save humanity nor did they create anyone. However God who created us and this world and all that is in it, is composed of three separate beings who are perfectly united in their mission of saving and sustaining their creatures.

The Bible teaches that the Godhead can neither be separated into three Gods nor merged into one person. This three-in-one not only created us, but they love us and devised an amazing plan to save a lost world from sin to restore us to His presence in paradise.

I know, I know, you still don't get it, but how can you when you don't believe and have faith in God. The Bible says, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). You won't understand any of this without believing God and the Holy Spirit helping you understand it intellectually and spiritually.

 

[shankara]

Rene Guenon, from "The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus":

"...the Infinite is properly that which has no limits, for ‘finite' is obviously synonymous with ‘limited, one cannot then correctly apply this term to anything other than that which has absolutely no limits, that is to say the universal All, which includes in itself all possibilities and consequently cannot be limited by anything in any way; the Infinite, thus understood, is metaphysically and logically necessary, for not only does it not imply any contradiction, not enclosing within itself anything negative, but it is on the contrary its negation that would be contradictory. Furthermore, there can obviously be only one Infinite, for two supposedly distinct infinites would limit and therefore inevitably exclude one another; consequently, every time the term ‘infinite' is used in any sense other than that which we have just mentioned, we can be assured a priori that this use is necessarily improper, for it amounts in short either to ignoring the metaphysical Infinite altogether, or to supposing another Infinite alongside it."

 

[A Freeman]

From: http://www.trinitytruth.org/ :-

The four verses below are the only Scriptures in the entire Bible which use the word antichrist. Note that those who John called antichrist were part of his Church but apostatized and went out on their own (see green highlighted text) and hence were in the world in his lifetime (see blue highlighted text). Thus these people John called antichrist used to be with him as professed Christians but began teaching something that was wrong. So what error did they teach that caused John to call them antichrist? (see yellow highlighted text) The trinity doctrine claims it was the one God playing the role of the Son who died on the cross and hence denies the LITERAL Son of God came in the flesh and died on the cross. Denying Jesus is the Son of God also means God cannot be a Father and so it denies both the Father and Son. Note carefully 1 John 2:22-23.

1 John 2:18-19 “it is the last time: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

1 John 2:22-23 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son has the Father also.”

1 John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

At the Protestant Reformation the Papacy was first identified as the first beast of Revelation 13 and is synonymous with what John called antichrist. The Catholic Church responded with the Counter Reformation where they commissioned two Jesuits to manufacture false doctrine to take the focus off them being identified as antichrist. (See who is the antichrist and Futurism Bible Prophecy for detailed information) This is where the false idea of a one man antichrist originated which Scripture never teaches. Considering what John wrote on antichrist, it becomes obvious that the way the Papacy denies the Father and Son is by their creation of the doctrine of the trinity which has corrupted almost all of Christendom.

Many believe their faith is well grounded in the doctrine of the trinity, yet this teaching is the foundational teaching of antichrist which makes it impossible to build on the true rock—Christ the Son OF the living God. The Handbook for Today's Catholic, page 11 says, “The mystery of the trinity is the central doctrine of the Catholic faith.” The antichrist power has built on the premise that Jesus is not the LITERAL Son of God, thus denying the Father and Son relationship. God's true Church will build on the foundation that Peter declared in Matthew 16:13-18: “Thou art the Christ, the Son OF the living God ... and upon THIS rock I will build my Church.” To believe the trinity teaching is actually to be walking in the footsteps of the antichrist power.

And since the Trinity doctrine teaches 3 co-equal beings, then why did John fail to include denying the Holy Spirit if it were really a third co-equal being? The answer is simple. Because the Holy Spirit is not a third being but a third entity being their Holy Spirit. As John also said, “truly our fellowship is with the Father, AND with his Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 1:3

-------

John 17:3 And THIS is Life Eternal, that they might KNOW Thee the ONLY True God, AND Christ the Saviour, whom Thou (the One True God) hast sent.

Note well: there is similarly no mention in Scripture of the Holy Spirit as a third person to get to know, nor any mention of a 3-in-1 god; only two SEPARATE individual Spirit-Beings to KNOW: The Father (the ONLY True God) and His LITERAL Son (Christ, the Saviour, the Son of The Living God), Whom Father sent.

Do you now perhaps see why the antichrist doctrine of the “trinity” is so dangerous please? Because it denies the TRUTH that Christ is the LITERAL Son of God, as it says repeatedly throughout Scripture?

References to Christ as the Son OF God (50)

Matthew (9): 4:3, 4:6, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, 26:63, 27:40, 27:43, 27:54

Mark (5): 1:1, 3:11, 5:7, 14:61, 15:39

Luke (7): 1:32, 1:35, 4:3, 4:9, 4:41, 8:28, 22:70

John (11): 1:34, 1:49, 3:18, 5:25, 6:69 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 11:27, 19:7, 20:30

Acts (2): 8:37, 9:20

Books with single references (5): Galatians 2:20, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Romans 1:4, Ephesians 4:13, Revelation 2:18

Hebrews (4): 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29

1 John (7): 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12, 5:13, 5:20

Also, three of the references to Christ being the literal Son of God refer to Him as the Son of THE Most High or THE Highest. Further, there are at least three more references made by Father to His Anointed (His Christ) as His Son.

Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son OF the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son OF the Highest: and THE LORD God his Father shall give unto him the Throne of David:

Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

And in Psalms, where Father (God, the Most High) refers His Anointed (His Christ) as His Son: Psalm 2:7, 2:12, Dan. 3:25.

Also of interest is the designation of the other angels, both in heaven and here on earth, as “the sons of God”, “children of the Most High” or “sons of the Living God”, etc., including:

Genesis 6:2-7, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Psalm 82:6, Hosea 1:10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14-19, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1-2.

This of course is in perfect agreement with the references to Christ as “the firstborn among many brethren” in Romans 8:29, “the firstborn of every creature” in Colossians 1:15, and “the beginning of the creation of God” in Rev. 3:14. There simply is no other way for Christ to be the literal Son of God (as well as the literal firstborn).

REFERENCES IN SCRIPTURE TO CHRIST AS “GOD THE SON”: ZERO (0)

REFERENCES IN SCRIPTURE TO “THE DEITY OF CHRIST”: ZERO (0)

The word “of”, by definition, indicates the origin or derivation of something, e.g. a Son OF God.

Common-sense: A Father ALWAYS comes BEFORE the Father's Son, just as a son ALWAYS is descended FROM the Son's Father. The Son is the OFFSPRING CREATED BY the Father, by definition.

Someone who does not believe Christ is the LITERAL Son OF God, which is what the antichrist Roman Catholic trinity doctrine teaches, is denying the truth, and thus is anti-Christ, by definition.

There are no “positional” roles for The Most High God, which would require the ONE True God to PRETEND to be three separate characters. That is simply more antichrist nonsense, to deny the TRUTH.