Rapture and End Time Beliefs

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Trinity teaches Jesus is 100% God and COEQUAL with the Father. Jesus said the Father is Greater after saying he didn't know the day or hour of his return. There are only a few possibilities. Either he forgot, or he didn't know in the first place. It has nothing to do with his humanity.

No it doesn't. His spirit is 100% God, the second person of the Trinity.

All three persons of the Trinity are identical in power, knowledge and nature. Together they are Elohim, the Godhead.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where does it mention seven years of tribulation?

70th week of Daniel is seven years long.

Revelation states two periods of 1260 days, which is seven years. 42 months twice which is seven years. Plus other numbers, all totaling a seven year period.

How you can't see seven years and claim to have done Bible study is amazing.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Trinity teaches Jesus is 100% God and COEQUAL with the Father. Jesus said the Father is Greater after saying he didn't know the day or hour of his return. There are only a few possibilities. Either he forgot, or he didn't know in the first place. It has nothing to do with his humanity.

There is of course another possibility and that is the Trinity is NOT based on the level of greatness, it is based on the unity of the three acting as one. It is the example for what marriage should be like. There are way more scriptures that speak of the plurality of the Godhood and even the one you quote speaks of at least two but we know there are three.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Everybody should reject the trinity. It's man made...by people you say are NOT Christian! I know you won't educate yourself and read it but some of these comments come from Trinitarians!

Religious writer A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, states that the Trinity is an “incomprehensible mystery” and that attempts to understand it “must remain forever futile.” He admits that churches, “without pretending to understand,” have nevertheless continued to teach this doctrine (1961, pp. 17-18).

He then remarkably concludes, “The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor” (p. 23).

The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Trinity, concedes that the Trinitarian concept is humanly incomprehensible: “It is admitted by all who thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression are of necessity imperfect” (1988, p. 1308).

Cyril Richardson, professor of church history at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said this in his book The Doctrine of The Trinity:
“My conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct . . . It produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms” (1958, pp. 148-149).
He also admitted, “Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it” (p. 16).

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge states regarding the Trinity, “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves” (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885, “Trinitarians”).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia acknowledges that “ ‘trinity’ is a second-century term found nowhere in the Bible, and the Scriptures present no finished trinitarian statement” (1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914). It further states that “church fathers crystallized the doctrine in succeeding centuries”—long after the apostles had passed from the scene.

The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary tells us, “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT [New Testament]” (Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”).

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism states: “Today, however, scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the OT [ Old Testament ] or the NT [ New Testament ] . . . It would go far beyond the intention and thought-forms of the OT to suppose that a late-fourth-century or thirteenth-century Christian doctrine can be found there . . . Likewise, the NT does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity” (Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, “God,” pp. 564-565).

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article on the Trinity, explains: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons” (1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out that “primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church” (Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, “God,” p. 84).

Historian and science fiction writer H.G. Wells, in his noted work The Outline of History, points out, “There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the trinity—at any rate from him” (1920, Vol. 2, p. 499).

Martin Luther, the German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation, conceded, “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man” (reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406).
The Oxford Companion to the Bible states: “Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]” (Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, “Trinity,” p. 782).

Professor Charles Ryrie, in his respected work Basic Theology, writes: “Many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity . . . In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that ‘clearly’ states that there is one God who exists in three persons” (1999, p. 89).

Ryrie goes on to state: “The above illustrations prove the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results . . . If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 90).

Millard Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes that the Trinity “is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.

“In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble” ( God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995,p. 12).

Citing Catholicism to support your claims?

You forgot the issue is also covered in the old testament. Genesis 1 says we, not I. Elohim is a unilateral of three or more. God appeared to Abraham as three men.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
70th week of Daniel is seven years long.

Revelation states two periods of 1260 days, which is seven years. 42 months twice which is seven years. Plus other numbers, all totaling a seven year period.

How you can't see seven years and claim to have done Bible study is amazing.

Here is where assumptions come in. Nowhere does it say the 1260 days are divided into a first or second part, that is assumed because it makes a nice pretty picture. Nowhere does it mention that tribulation is 7 yrs. or 1260 days long. Is there a 70th week? Yes! Is there a time of tribulation coming? Yes! I'm just showing that no where in the bible does it imply that it is seven years long. That is simply man's assumption.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Professor Erickson further states that the Trinity teaching “is not present in biblical thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this foreign mold [of Greek concepts]. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what the Bible says about God” (p. 20).

Professor Erickson later points out: “It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness . . . how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? . . . For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.

“Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion” (pp. 108-109). Later in this booklet we will consider various scriptures often used to support the Trinity doctrine.

Shirley Guthrie, Jr., professor of theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, writes: “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” ( Christian Doctrine, 1994, pp. 76-77).”

The background for how the Trinity was introduced
Since the Trinity is not found in the Bible, as so many scholars and theologians admit, how did it come to be viewed as such an important teaching?

Theology professors Roger Olson and Christopher Hall explain part of the puzzle in their book The Trinity: “It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture . . . How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture? . . .

“The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the New Testament in the heat of controversy, but the church fathers who developed it believed they were simply exegeting [explaining] divine revelation and not at all speculating or inventing new ideas. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical (universal) councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.)” (2002, pp. 1-2).

In reference to 1 John 5:7 Trinitarians have added to the text...

“The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,” explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. “Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate” ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary also dismisses the King James and New King James Versions’ additions in 1 John 5:7-8 as “obviously a late gloss with no merit” (Glenn Barker, Vol. 12, 1981, p. 353).

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its comments as well: “The famous interpolation after ‘three witnesses’ is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] .  .  . No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]” (p. 1038).

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: “This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it” (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 2008, pp. 540-541).

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: “It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect … It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament” (1980, p. 171).

Some pretty liberal claims there.

No thank you, I will stick with the Bible, not your nonliteral claims.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That make no sense...because it's wrong and this proves it...

I also believe him when he said blasphemy against him will be forgiven but blasphemy against the holy spirit will not. If they were the same person blasphemy against one would be blasphemy against the other.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Trinity debunked!

I don't think anybody believes that the trinity is the same "person". I take that back, that is what the "Jesus only" folk believe. I fully believe that when we get to heaven we will see or at least be aware of three distinct personalities, separate from each other but working in perfect unity as one. Something that is hard for us to imagine with our limited human perspective.
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here is where assumptions come in. Nowhere does it say the 1260 days are divided into a first or second part, that is assumed because it makes a nice pretty picture. Nowhere does it mention that tribulation is 7 yrs. or 1260 days long. Is there a 70th week? Yes! Is there a time of tribulation coming? Yes! I'm just showing that no where in the bible does it imply that it is seven years long. That is simply man's assumption.

1260 days is 3.5 years. Revelation states to such periods. No assumption.

Compare the 70th week of Daniel with Revelation. The events match up.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,084
218
63
67
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1260 days is 3.5 years. Revelation states to such periods. No assumption.

Compare the 70th week of Daniel with Revelation. The events match up.

I'm not saying they aren't or they don't, Coral, just that what pre-trib breaks down what the 70th week consists of is not accurately based on scripture. Yes, it can be broken down into a sequential series of events, just not the way pre-trib believes. BTW, I was pre-trib for 40 yrs. and could debate your position as well as anybody, before I learned the truth of pre-wrath.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,744
5,599
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A lot of people claim to be Christian who are not.

Simple question, are you or are you not?
Simple questions don't make accusations.

I gave you a simple answer.