Prove the Trinity wrong challenge.

[Dave L]

I have studied them. Per the bible by judge them by their fruits.

Do not try to tell may their fruits of Catholicism, orthodox and similar are good constructive fruit.

How about the Ecumenical Creeds? Can you find flaws in the trinity doctrine I posted?

 

[CoreIssue]

How about the Ecumenical Creeds? Can you find flaws in the trinity doctrine I posted?

I do not do shopping cart theology, meaning pick what you like and throw the rest away.

They are not independent of the rest of the creeds.

 

[Dave L]

I do not do shopping cart theology, meaning pick what you like and throw the rest away.

They are not independent of the rest of the creeds.

So you haven't read them?

 

[CoreIssue]

So you haven't read them?

You're not listening.

 

[Dave L]

You're not listening.

Not the answer I was looking for.

 

[jaybird]

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

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 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 2:18–19)

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” (2 John 7)

Genesis 8 1-5

8 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

 

[jaybird]

yes, we are taught that Christianity invented these right, but they are ancient themes that were just borrowed for effect, same as the Greek gods in Scripture, unabashedly invoked bc the concept is what matters, not the labels i guess. "Virgin Mary" is not necessary for a "Christ," she is just the most inclusive way to present God to Artemis/virgin cult worshippers who are seeking, and "Christ" was a common term used for kings

the Canaanites have three gods at the top, and these three are one/one in agreement. the Most High of our Hebrew bible says time and time again, do not be like the Canaanites. the trinity process that began at nicea sounds little different than what these Canaanites were involved in.

 

[Enoch111]

Genesis 8 1-5

8 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

Not sure what relevance this has to the OP, but God here is Elohim (אֱלֹהִים֙), the true God, which automatically presents us with the triune Godhead.

 

[jaybird]

Not sure what relevance this has to the OP, but God here is Elohim (אֱלֹהִים֙), the true God, which automatically presents us with the triune Godhead.

it means plural, defining it as three and only three is not correct. its also an assumption that the Most High (in Gen 1 26) is speaking to His other persons (Himself) and not the sons of the Most High which we know where up there at the time.

 

[CoreIssue]

Hebrew uniplural. Three or more acting as one.

Not three manifestations of one god.

Uniplural Noun (Forerunner Commentary)

Also, where the scouts brought back one grape. It was a stem of Grapes carried on a pole.

 

[jaybird]

Hebrew uniplural. Three or more acting as one.

Not three manifestations of one god.

Uniplural Noun (Forerunner Commentary)

Also, where the scouts brought back one grape. It was a stem of Grapes carried on a pole.

that makes no sense being as the Most High is always referred to as "He" and "I" and never "them" or "they".
and if this "uniplural" is the true definition meaning a trinity, why is it that nobody got it until hundreds of years after Jesus ascended. Enoch, Samuel, Elijah, Moses, not one of these guys mention it. i am pretty sure they would have known.

 

[Naomi25]

Paul said that after his demise, grievous wolves would enter the flock. After the 1st century, the church very quickly sank into apostasy, first starting in Rome and Alexandria. BY the time the creeds were established to define the Godhead and attempt to unify Christendom (a project initiated by Constantine the emperor, not the church) the church was already abandoning truth in favour of pagan practise and belief. The ensuing means by which the trinity was established among believers , by coercion not study of scripture, and the tactics use to silence any opposition, is evidence to my mind that the holy Spirit had very little to do with what many would deem 'revelation' on the matter.
That the opposition, men such as Wulfilas, a courageous missionary to the Goths, was Semi-Arian, and a remarkable work accomplished by him, in stark contrast to the methods employed by Rome, testifies to the nature of the men involved in the controversy.

With respect, we know we disagree strongly about some of the orthodox beliefs. So in that regard, for you, I suppose you do see it that way. However for those who see the Trinity as a biblical teaching (for example), the creeds and the purpose behind them did not come from apostasy, but to combat them.
This conversation is probably not really one that we can have, as much as I enjoy talking with you. It just centres too much on where we part ways, on the big issues and whether or not people in the Church down through the ages have been given wisdom to understand them. You would say no, I would say yes, in many cases. I would, of course, caution always checking against scripture, but again, in these big issues, you and I tend to see the bible teaching very different things. And I think we've already been over them. Is there any point going there again and risking animosity arising? I would say definitely not!

 

[Naomi25]

Thanks for the reply. Please understand the trinity is under attack on this forum. So I posed it so those attacking it could try to prove it wrong. So far they along with untold millions throughout history have failed.

I agree heartily and am so glad you are tackling it head on! I've attempted on numerous occasions to show through scripture that the Trinity is a biblical doctrine, but sadly I've found that the weight of the verses that clearly paint Christ as equal to God the Father...as God himself, hold no sway over what they already believe.

 

[brakelite]

With respect, we know we disagree strongly about some of the orthodox beliefs. So in that regard, for you, I suppose you do see it that way. However for those who see the Trinity as a biblical teaching (for example), the creeds and the purpose behind them did not come from apostasy, but to combat them.
This conversation is probably not really one that we can have, as much as I enjoy talking with you. It just centres too much on where we part ways, on the big issues and whether or not people in the Church down through the ages have been given wisdom to understand them. You would say no, I would say yes, in many cases. I would, of course, caution always checking against scripture, but again, in these big issues, you and I tend to see the bible teaching very different things. And I think we've already been over them. Is there any point going there again and risking animosity arising? I would say definitely not!

Iagree. I get that idea that the councils were formed to combat heresy, or so we are told. Yet we have no real conclusive evidence that what Arius taught and believed was actually heresy. He probably was, but I wouldn't make it a hill to die on. Neither do I believe a belief in the Trinity, no matter what form it may take, is worth arguing over. It is an assumed doctrine, and like I said in a previous post, assumptions are not the stuff of salvation or should they be the cause of a animosity between friends. ☺
That said my main contention in this whole debate is not to argue against the Trinity per se, but rather to argue against the necessity of Fung such a formula in the first place when scripture shady revealed all there was necessary to come into a saving relationship with the Father and Son.

 

[justbyfaith]

I will only point out here what I pointed out in another thread: that the Deity of Christ, as a doctrine, is essential to salvation (John 8:24 in light of John 8:58 in light of John 8:59 and John 10:31-33 and Exodus 3:14)

 

[jaybird]

I will only point out here what I pointed out in another thread: that the Deity of Christ, as a doctrine, is essential to salvation (John 8:24 in light of John 8:58 in light of John 8:59 and John 10:31-33 and Exodus 3:14)

none of those passages say one must believe Jesus is the Most High to receive salvation.

John 20 talks of salvation and belief that Jesus is the Most High is not mentioned.

John 20 30 - 31
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[Naomi25]

Iagree. I get that idea that the councils were formed to combat heresy, or so we are told. Yet we have no real conclusive evidence that what Arius taught and believed was actually heresy. He probably was, but I wouldn't make it a hill to die on. Neither do I believe a belief in the Trinity, no matter what form it may take, is worth arguing over. It is an assumed doctrine, and like I said in a previous post, assumptions are not the stuff of salvation or should they be the cause of a animosity between friends. ☺
That said my main contention in this whole debate is not to argue against the Trinity per se, but rather to argue against the necessity of Fung such a formula in the first place when scripture shady revealed all there was necessary to come into a saving relationship with the Father and Son.

I do believe the Trinity is an essential doctrine, one that should be stood for. But you are right in that I do not want to fight with you over it! The bible says there is a time for everything, and I've had my say with you about the Trinity, and vise versa, for now, anyway. I think more benefit comes when we can build trust between people that eventually leads to these deeper conversations. That way, rather than just tossing scripture back and forth to strangers who don't really want their minds changed by other strangers, we can move towards understanding what someone believes, why they believe it and if they have any validity to that belief, and vise versa.

 

[farouk]

I think it a shame that people are not delving into the Church fathers more. Should we believe what they write just because they are 'old'? No...and I don't think anyone, least of all you, are suggesting we should. But to ignore and pass over centuries of wisdom that God has passed onto Christian men (and women!) is short-changing ourselves.
People say that the 'Spirit leads them' today, and that's all they need. Well and good, but they are ignoring that the 'Spirit led' these men in similar ways! What makes our 'revelations' more important than theirs?

I guess the Patristic writings are useful witnesses as to what was held at a certain point in early church history.

 

[brakelite]

none of those passages say one must believe Jesus is the Most High to receive salvation.

John 20 talks of salvation and belief that Jesus is the Most High is not mentioned.

John 20 30 - 31
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I would like to remind you that when Jesus declared that God was his Father, or in confessing he was the Son of God, the Jews took great offence at this. But remember that they also in a sense, considered themselves children of God, as we do. But they knew Jesus was claiming a Sonship way above anything any other human laid claim to. His Sonship amounted to equality with the Father. That is why they accused Jesus of blasphemy... Why they charged him with making himself equal to God. And Jesus did not correct them. Why not? Because what they were condemning Jesus as being, was the truth. Jesus could not deny who he was. He was absolutely, and in the highest sense, the Son of His Father. That is what makes Jesus God. Not just a son as per the incarnation, but a Son from before creation. A Son begotten of the Father, the express image of his person. This is what the Bible reveals, at least to me. And again, for me, I step back in fear and trembling to go any further in stepping upon holy ground by surmising how the Father and Son are ontologically one.

 

[jaybird]

I would like to remind you that when Jesus declared that God was his Father, or in confessing he was the Son of God, the Jews took great offence at this. But remember that they also in a sense, considered themselves children of God, as we do. But they knew Jesus was claiming a Sonship way above anything any other human laid claim to. His Sonship amounted to equality with the Father. That is why they accused Jesus of blasphemy... Why they charged him with making himself equal to God. And Jesus did not correct them. Why not? Because what they were condemning Jesus as being, was the truth. Jesus could not deny who he was. He was absolutely, and in the highest sense, the Son of His Father. That is what makes Jesus God. Not just a son as per the incarnation, but a Son from before creation. A Son begotten of the Father, the express image of his person. This is what the Bible reveals, at least to me. And again, for me, I step back in fear and trembling to go any further in stepping upon holy ground by surmising how the Father and Son are ontologically one.

i thought they were stoning Him for making Himself elohim. Jesus quotes psalm 82, another passage about gods/elohim/sons of the Most High and then Jesus confirms He was claiming to be Son of the Most High, He does not say they were stoning Him for claiming to be the Most High.
sons of the Most High are of the heavens, not this world. IMO thats what they had a problem with.