Can One Be Christian and Not Believe In The Trinity?

[Marvelloustime]

Now
let us compare them popes to THIS PETER .
Peter never decked himself up with great robes and big fancy hats
and had men calling him MOST HOLY anything
dont you see , they used partial truths to promote thier own system .
I do not know exactly when it f ell , i only know it did .
Peter stopped men f rom kneeling before him . yet for as long back
as i can read about in the history of the popes , WRITTEN BY A D EVOUT man OF THE RCC
They have long cliamed titles , long wore f ancy garbs
And long loved the praise and worship of men who kneel before them to kiss a ring .
A ring peter never wore .
I mean they cliam they honor that seat
BUT HOW COME not even PETER had a man one kneel before HIM and call HIM MOST reverand
or MOST HOLY FATHER .
WHY ,
BECAUSE JESUS warned peter and all
BEWARE OF MEN who wear long robes and love f lattering titles and to be seen and praised of men .
They lied to us all my friend . they lied to us all .
And now statues of mary , of etc
are brought in and kissed and incensed is b urned to it . ALL of which GOD does not support .
and far worse has come and will come through the unholy merger of her ecumenical cup .
WE just need to stick to the bible . And do not stray from it .

@amigo de christo

 

[Justified]

Copy the whole scripture into the post and we will discuss them.

The whole Bible? How about you go back to one of the several posts I made with Scripture in them and then reply.

 

[Justified]

You make claims but can't show their. You claim I'm making a category error but can't explain how. Then you ignore the 4 points I made in that one post.

You got nothing. We're done.

No, I explained it. If you can't understand, ask questions. Or is this just how you get yourself out of situations where you can't answer?

I've always noticed proponents of this doctrine always ignore the not, treating the sentence to mean the exact same thing as if the "not" is not there. So, "Billy is NOT home" is taken to 'support' the claim that Billy IS home.

Obviously, they make this desperate reach precisely because their IDOL is not in Scripture.

No one is ignoring the "not." Anti-Trinitarians, however, are ignoring the context.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If "taking the form of a servant" means he was truly human, and it does, then it follows that "though he was in the form of God" means that he was truly God. That means your understanding of "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" is incorrect. It can legitimately mean "something to be held on to," which perfectly fits the context.

Notice too, that Jesus (the Son) emptied himself; it wasn't the Father who did it. Also, if he wasn't truly God, what was it that he emptied himself of? If he wasn't actually already in existence, how could he empty himself?

Also notice that it is in the context of "being found in human form" that "he humbled himself by becoming obedient." Who was he obeying? The Father. When? When he was "found in human form."

Overall, the context is about Jesus's example of humility that believers are to emulate. There cannot be any greater example of humility than the creator becoming one of his creatures, taking their sin upon himself so that they can receive his righteousness.

 

[Justified]

Denial. I've shown many contradictions.

View attachment 78968

No, this isn't a contradiction; it's a straw man based on a lack of understanding about the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps you have shown one that another poster has made in their arguments, I don't know, but you have yet to show any actual contradictions with the doctrine of the Trinity itself.

Do you deny that the Son preexisted his birth as the man Jesus?

 

[amigo de christo]

The whole Bible? How about you go back to one of the several posts I made with Scripture in them and then reply.

a general reminder for us all . a simple general reminder for me , for you and for all is .........
any love that allows unbelief , IS NO LOVE OF GOD .
rather its a lie claoked as love .
Now let us remember this when men twist the scrips
when men make claims of this big ol fat broad path to GOD , this sin accepting and allowing , and even Unbeleif IN CHRIST allowing
so called love path .
THAT WHORE is lying to us all . She is one well favored harlot too as many do her bidding
of her ecumincal cup of fornication .
This was but a simple , but necessary reminder for us all .
Okay we may all return to the post now .

 

[amigo de christo]

The whole Bible? How about you go back to one of the several posts I made with Scripture in them and then reply.

what a lovely name . JUSTIFIED .
just never let us forget WHO and by WHOM and ONLY BY WHOM anyone can BE JUSTIFIED , MADE RIGHTEOUS , SAVED .
That BE JESUS my near and my dear friend . AND he cannot lie .
Thus let us heed HIS words and not those who try and preach a love of unbeleif .
Cause there is an advesary , and LET US NOT HEED that voice or the voice of its peoples who do its strange
inclusie love that makes the path to GOD broader every day . And has omitted the fact ONE must
even have had to Beleive ON JESUS the CHRIST .
the seperent is a wise and cunning one and he knows how to lie .

 

[Justified]

You need to take care there Brakelight!

Philippians 2:5–11 Christ:

The Ultimate Example of Humility

These verses form the heart of the Epistle. Christ stands as the supreme example of humility.

Verse 5 “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.”

Though he was the greatest of all men, he washed his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). Believers are called to clothe themselves with humility, as Christ did (Matt 11:29; 1 Pet 5:5–11). See also Isaiah 57:15; 66:2; Matthew 5:3–5; Mark 10:15; Colossians 3:12; 1 Peter 3:4.

And what greater example of humility can even be conceived than the perfectly holy, righteous creator becoming one of his creators in order to redeem them from their own sin?

Verse 6 — “Being in the form of God.”

This does not mean being the same person as God. The same concept of “form” appears in 2 Timothy 3:5 (“form of godliness”) and Galatians 4:19 (“Christ formed in you”). The related verb is used in Romans 12:2 (“transformed”) and 2 Corinthians 3:18 (“changed”).

You should study this more, because this is not correct. The specific word used for form, morphe, is use only three times in the NT--in Phil. 2:6 and 7, and in Mark 16:12.

Mar 16:12 After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.

Note that this is a time when the two disciples didn't recognize Jesus.

It would also be worth looking into what "being," huparchó, means.

The phrase “thought it not robbery” is better rendered (RV): “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself.” Rather than seizing immediate glory, he willingly chose a path of humility and suffering.

Based on a legitimate meaning of harpagmos, "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," can be understood as holding fast onto something he already had. And that is the only understanding that fits the context.

The NIV gives a great understanding of what Paul is actually saying:

Php 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Verse 7 — “Made himself of no reputation.”

Literally, “he emptied himself” (RV, RSV). This reflects Jesus’ teaching: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt 5:3; cf. Psa 34:18; 51:17; Isa 57:15; 66:1–2).

Taking “the form of a servant,” he ministered to the broken and submitted entirely to his Father’s will. This section clearly echoes Isaiah’s Servant prophecies (Isa 42:1–4; 49:4–9; 50:5–6; 52:13–53:12), portraying the Son’s willing obedience, displayed under the most intense pressure and trial.

Please take the time to read each of those Isaiah passages, I promise, you won’t go wrong!

Who did the emptying? Of what was he emptied of? How did that emptying occur? Could he have emptied himself if he did not already exist?

@Wrangler If you approach this passage with the wrong starting point, it’s easy to end up in confusion.

Yes, that is true. I recommend that you do more study, serious study, then reconsider your post.

 

[Wrangler]

They do provide plural-scriptures precisely because it is NOT a Biblical teaching. Because there is a verse that teaches what day Adam was created, only one verse is needed.

Because no verse teaches what day Eve was created on, they rely on artificial synthesis, group unrelated verses, read into it what they want, change the meaning of words, do math or substitution. Whala! You can 'support' ANY doctrine this way.

I keep going back to the motive. What is the motive to claim the Bible "supports" what it does not explicitly teach? They make it seem the only thing we have to go on are these vague glimpses, which is totally not true. Scripture explicitly teaches teaches there is one God, whose name is YHWH, who we relate to as Father. Jesus affirms this is the only true God.

1. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for them?
2. Why do Jesus followers teach what Jesus did not?
3. No Scripture says believing the trinity is a salvation issue. So, why do they have this burning passion for what is NOT a salvation issue?
4. Why do they make this wholly contradictory idea - contrary to the Bible, contrary to logic, contrary to definition, contrary to language usage - seem like it's the central message of the Bible that one's salvation depends on when it's not?

Rev 1:1, the resurrected Jesus sitting on God's throne in heaven, given all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God as God - in his unitarian nature - gave Jesus the revelation. Not "the Father." God - in his unitarian nature gave this to Jesus.

It’s not surprising the advocates of 3-is-1 just ignore the points in this thread.

It’s been at least 15 minutes since I posted this. LOL

 

[Justified]

It’s not surprising the advocates of 3-is-1 just ignore the points in this thread.

It’s been at least 15 minutes since I posted this. LOL

Wow. 15 whole minutes! Goodness, there must be no answer anywhere. Maybe it's just the case that no one saw it; I didn't. Get over yourself already.

Btw, you haven't responded to my two posts from 55-60 minutes ago. So, perhaps you should do what you want others to do.

 

[RLT63]

It’s not surprising the advocates of 3-is-1 just ignore the points in this thread.

It’s been at least 15 minutes since I posted this. LOL

“Rev 1:1, the resurrected Jesus sitting on God's throne in heaven, given all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God as God - in his unitarian nature - gave Jesus the revelation. Not "the Father." God - in his unitarian nature gave this to Jesus.“
The Father is God

 

[Wrangler]

“Rev 1:1, the resurrected Jesus sitting on God's throne in heaven, given all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God as God - in his unitarian nature - gave Jesus the revelation. Not "the Father." God - in his unitarian nature gave this to Jesus.“
The Father is Go

'Father ... the only true God.'
Jesus

 

[HealthyShape]

Scripture explicitly teaches teaches there is one God...

1. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for them?

Because Christians accept the entirety of the Bible, not just few verses that you like. There are also explicit verses that Jesus is God. Trinity is the orthodox Christian solution to one God and three persons being all called God in the Bible and in the early church.

 

[Wrangler]

Because Christians accept the entirety of the Bible, not just few verses that you like.

LOL Project again!

Pretend "it all" supports your doctrine while glossing over the actual teaching of the Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

That first church was called CATHOLIC by somebody important in the church at that time.
Somebody that might have written that on his way to Rome to be eaten by lions.
I'd have to look it up to be certain, but it's not important WHEN he wrote it,,,
just that he DID write it.

Well it is the progression of the history of Christianity. They called Christianity Catholic.....universial. It was a description not a title until the 4th century.

 

[HealthyShape]

LOL Project again!

Pretend "it all" supports your doctrine while glossing over the actual teaching of the Bible.

Not sure what is this supposed to mean. Verses about Jesus being God are widely known, do you want me to repeat them or what?

 

[Wrangler]

Not sure what is this supposed to mean.

Address the points one at a time.

They do provide plural-scriptures precisely because it is NOT a Biblical teaching. Because there is a verse that teaches what day Adam was created, only one verse is needed.

Because no verse teaches what day Eve was created on, they rely on artificial synthesis, group unrelated verses, read into it what they want, change the meaning of words, do math or substitution. Whala! You can 'support' ANY doctrine this way.

I keep going back to the motive. What is the motive to claim the Bible "supports" what it does not explicitly teach? They make it seem the only thing we have to go on are these vague glimpses, which is totally not true. Scripture explicitly teaches teaches there is one God, whose name is YHWH, who we relate to as Father. Jesus affirms this is the only true God.

1. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for them?
2. Why do Jesus followers teach what Jesus did not?
3. No Scripture says believing the trinity is a salvation issue. So, why do they have this burning passion for what is NOT a salvation issue?
4. Why do they make this wholly contradictory idea - contrary to the Bible, contrary to logic, contrary to definition, contrary to language usage - seem like it's the central message of the Bible that one's salvation depends on when it's not?

Rev 1:1, the resurrected Jesus sitting on God's throne in heaven, given all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God as God - in his unitarian nature - gave Jesus the revelation. Not "the Father." God - in his unitarian nature gave this to Jesus.

 

[Grailhunter]

The term BISHOP existed when Paul was writing to Timothy.
The Greek word is translated as BISHOP or ELDER.
I've already gone through this and will not repeat.

The word that early church used was ἐπίσκοπος episkopos....meaning overseer.....eventually became Bishop

 

[HealthyShape]

Address the points one at a time.

I addressed one, you mocked it. Why should I give you even more of my energy?

 

[Justified]

They do provide plural-scriptures precisely because it is NOT a Biblical teaching. Because there is a verse that teaches what day Adam was created, only one verse is needed.

Because no verse teaches what day Eve was created on, they rely on artificial synthesis, group unrelated verses, read into it what they want, change the meaning of words, do math or substitution. Whala! You can 'support' ANY doctrine this way.

I keep going back to the motive. What is the motive to claim the Bible "supports" what it does not explicitly teach? They make it seem the only thing we have to go on are these vague glimpses, which is totally not true. Scripture explicitly teaches teaches there is one God, whose name is YHWH, who we relate to as Father. Jesus affirms this is the only true God.

1. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for them?
2. Why do Jesus followers teach what Jesus did not?
3. No Scripture says believing the trinity is a salvation issue. So, why do they have this burning passion for what is NOT a salvation issue?
4. Why do they make this wholly contradictory idea - contrary to the Bible, contrary to logic, contrary to definition, contrary to language usage - seem like it's the central message of the Bible that one's salvation depends on when it's not?

Rev 1:1, the resurrected Jesus sitting on God's throne in heaven, given all authority in heaven and Earth is STILL not God as God - in his unitarian nature - gave Jesus the revelation. Not "the Father." God - in his unitarian nature gave this to Jesus.

What do you even want addressed in this? This is simply all opinion based on poor reasoning and poor theology, which is based on poor hermeneutics and not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.

Again, the doctrine of the Trinity fully affirms monotheism; it is one of the core reasons for the doctrine.

 

[Grailhunter]

The CC was the original church.
The CC did establish canon.
The CC did assemble the NT.
The CC did keep heresies out of the early church.

Most of that was not true.
The early Church was the WAY.
A favored collection of texts were chosen before the 4th century Ecumenical Councils. The Councils just accepted the list and it eventually was called a Canon.
The Catholic Church defined heresies as any belief that was different than theirs and was determined to promote one belief.....theirs. With Emperor Constantine at the head of the Church he considered anyone of another belief an enemy of the state.....and they were killed. Protestant would have definitely been considered heretics.