Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #5, Book of Acts

[Wrangler]

Well I didn't follow your answer in other threads.

That's not my problem. I am sure that I specifically answered this question for YOU in other threads. You don't want an answer that goes against your trinitarian doctrine. You just want to ask rhetorical questions to derail this thread about the Book of Acts.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The Bible most certainly does not declare that an attribute of a being is a being. So indoctrinated in your doctrine you see unicorns everywhere.

Make a blessed day.

So maybe you are not a being but only the attribute of a higher power then?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Obviously, it is you who has believed the lie hook-line-sinker that there is even a doctrinal purity test to enter heaven.

Well if you wish to be presumptious and imply I am saying salvation---once again you are wrong and sinning the sin of presumption. I simply stated we will see who is right and who believed a lie.PERIOD! Everything else comes from your preconceived biases of me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's not my problem. I am sure that I specifically answered this question for YOU in other threads. You don't want an answer that goes against your trinitarian doctrine. You just want to ask rhetorical questions to derail this thread about the Book of Acts.

If you did I wouldn't ask. If you do not wish to enlighten me with your wisdom that just makes you spiritually cheap and unwilling to correct what you believe is error in a brothers life! Not a good look for one who does loads of writing here.

 

[Wrangler]

So maybe you are not a being but only the attribute of a higher power then?

Well, my wife tells me I’m being a pain in the neck. So, there is that.

 

[Wrangler]

Well if you wish to be presumptious and imply I am saying salvation

Didn’t you refer to finding out on Judgment Day? Given your apparent agreement that there is no Doctrinal Purity test to enter heaven, what else is there to find out on that day?

 

[Wrangler]

If you did I wouldn't ask. If you do not wish to enlighten me with your wisdom that just makes you spiritually cheap and unwilling to correct what you believe is error in a brothers life!

Nah. The cheapness of you asking the question rhetorically has already been revealed. Did you watch my vid on the topic?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, my wife tells me I’m being a pain in the neck. So, there is that.

My wife tell s me I am a pain a bit lower! LOLOLOLOL

 

[post]

Acts.

*ahem*

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock,
among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,
to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
(Acts 20:28)
​

*beg pardon*

 

[farouk]

Then after we establish how we see
God the Father
Jesus the Son
and the Holy Spirit
We can discuss all other concepts and principles from there.

Hi
@Emily Nghiem God in Three Persons is indeed very Scriptural; it's part of the baptismal formula for the Great Commission in Matthew 28; and Father, Son and Holy Spirit are deeply present in John's Gospel, Romans 8 and indeed John's First Epistle.

 

[BarneyFife]

I don't understand why people argue about this. There is just as much scriptural evidence for one as for the other.

As early as Genesis 1:26, we read:

Then God
אֱלֹהִ֔ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

said,
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר (way·yō·mer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 559: To utter, say

“Let Us make
נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect Cohortative if contextual - first person common plural
Strong's 6213: To do, make

man
אָדָ֛ם (’ā·ḏām)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 120: Ruddy, a human being

in Our image,
בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ (bə·ṣal·mê·nū)
Preposition-b | Noun - masculine singular construct | first person common plural
Strong's 6754: A phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure, an idol

Every single one of the 27 most popular English translations featured on BibleHub.com describes God as being "the plural one."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all of this, I don't require anyone to hold a trinitarian position for me to consider them a brother or sister in Christ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[RickeyD]

I believe the Trinity is extant beginning with Genesis 1:1 (Elohim - a plural noun/singular verb), the Holy Spirit is first introduced in Genesis 1:2; the Father-Son-Spirit (Us, Our) are seen creating the complex human genome in Genesis 1:26-28; the Son is introduced in Genesis 3:15 as emanating from the virgin seed of the woman (to circumvent the sin-nature transferred by Adam's seed) and entering into battle with the Devil to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8b); the battle strategy used by God is outlined in Genesis 3:21 where God Himself would provide the sacrifice for our sin through the shedding of innocent blood and the rejection of man's works as pictured by the fig leaves used by Adam in an attempt to cover his own sin. Within the first-three Chapters of the Holy Spirit's teaching...we see the Trinity and this truism extends throughout the Text; both, Old and New Covenants.

Jesus clearly differentiated the Father, Son, Spirit, during His ministry and without the Trinity you could not know God nor would you have the opportunity to enjoy the forgiveness of sin and life in eternity. I also believe that it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who teaches the truism and necessity for the Trinity and anyone who does not see the need for the Trinity or understand this most relevant doctrine is NOT born of the Spirit and if you're absent the Spirit, you remain in your sin.

Jesus is God and the one who possesses the Holy Spirit understands this and believes this and if one denies the deity of Jesus they will die in their sins (John 8:24) as it is the indwelling Holy Spirit that reveals these things.

 

[Emily Nghiem]

Hi
@Emily Nghiem God in Three Persons is indeed very Scriptural; it's part of the baptismal formula for the Great Commission in Matthew 28; and Father, Son and Holy Spirit are deeply present in John's Gospel, Romans 8 and indeed John's First Epistle.

Dear @farouk
What I mean by establish how we see God as Three: all religions have their own base core based on the relative equivalent of the same three universal levels that are one not three.

So to "translate" between one person's system for the "Trinity" -- if you "align" the three corresponding levels that match each other, then you can see how parallel terms "translate" between one system abd the next.

For example, in Confucianism, the THREE in one core is
Jen
Yi
Li
Since Jen means the Ultimate or highest Benevolence, where man is instructed to take refuge in the highest good, then Jen represents God's highest will and truth.
Yi is the highest principle embodied in man, and thus corresponds to the level of Jesus by whose authority God's laws are embodied and fulfilled where Chrisr rejoins us with God.
(And Li is the outward expession of virtue)

So to align this system of laws or principles with Christianity: Jesus as the perfect Justice of God fulfilling the laws means embodying Christ Jesus fulfills the laws and level of "Yi" in the center, and "Li" or outward works and relations with neighbors in society FOLLOWS from that. And this is the same as building and living in the Kingdom of God which corresponds to "Jen" or taking refuge in the highest good and greatest benevolence.

To explain Christianity in Confucian terms, this is how I would align the two systems, like using the "Trinity" as a "Rosetta Stone".

@APAK @Wrangler
Instead of arguing over the flaws and misuse of the "Trinity" doctrine as a manmade condition to divide and reject over, why not use it as a tool to diagnose how people see life or talk about God and universal laws of nature and the universe, and align systems based on "parallel" levels using religions more like "parables" to describe spiritual concepts and principles to different people instead of fighting?

 

[kcnalp]

"Name" is singular. Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

Matthew 28:18-19 (NKJV)
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Emily Nghiem]

Dear @BarnyFife
I understand that ELOHIM the plural manifestation of God
is what the HOLY SPIRIT is used to represent.
In fact, one group the IDMR teaches Father/Son/HolySpirit
as Yahweh/Yeshua/Elohim

The CONFLICT is when people refer to Father/Son/HolySpirit
by saying things like "Jesus is God" which has different meanings in different contexts.

To people who see this as DENYING that God is infinite and greater
than the Son Jesus who is INCARNATED in man,
this is what causes the whole conflict over false teaching.

My understanding of why Unitarians as well as Unitarian Universalists
rejected the Trinity teaching was the DOGMA or purpose in using the DOCTRINE
to divide and persecute others for not teaching/understanding God using this way of teaching.

This becomes as divisive as Atheists who are actually opposed to THEISTS abusing THEISM
to INDOCTRINATE and judge/punish others based on their theology,
vs real skeptics who either do not believe in God or believe there is not a God.

Once people get it into their heads that
* Trinitarians are trying to impose FALSE DOCTRINE OR CONDITIONS
that becomes the issue similar to Atheists being against THEISTS or THEISM more than having an issue over God
* or Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses rejecting the Trinity "cannot be Christian"
because "they deny the divinity of Jesus"
then this becomes a battle between groups "whose elders or church is teaching it all wrong"

With JW and with other Unitarians, I find we have NO ISSUE
if we STICK WITH THE BIBLE and where it says
Father/Son/Holy Spirit, just using those terms and not arguing over other phrases.

As long as we agree that John 10:29-30 is true, simultaneously,
that the Father is greater than all, and the Son and Father are One,
then we can agree on both things without getting entangled in
arguments over wording it any other way.

====================================================

I don't understand why people argue about this. There is just as much scriptural evidence for one as for the other.

As early as Genesis 1:26, we read:

Then God
אֱלֹהִ֔ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

said,
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר (way·yō·mer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 559: To utter, say

“Let Us make
נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect Cohortative if contextual - first person common plural
Strong's 6213: To do, make

man
אָדָ֛ם (’ā·ḏām)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 120: Ruddy, a human being

in Our image,
בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ (bə·ṣal·mê·nū)
Preposition-b | Noun - masculine singular construct | first person common plural
Strong's 6754: A phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure, an idol

Every single one of the 27 most popular English translations featured on BibleHub.com describes God as being "the plural one."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all of this, I don't require anyone to hold a trinitarian position for me to consider them a brother or sister in Christ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gregory]

That is a crazy example. no-one suggests that God the Father and Jesus went up a hill.
You just built a straw man to knock down.

Sorry Mungo, what he did was show you that the "and" in both the scriptures and a rhyme that 2 separate and distinct people are involved in the event.

IOW when the rhyme says Jack "and" Jill ran up the hill, you would see in your mind, 2 distinct persons running up the hill. But somehow, if you are a trinitarian, and you say that God "and" Jesus ran up the hill, you would only be able to see in your mind, 1 persons running up the hill. Kind of weird, but a good analogy.

So a rhyme proves that trinitarian doctrine is not quite right.

 

[Wrangler]

I believe the Trinity is extant beginning with Genesis 1:1

Exegesis. Of course, anyone can impose a take using vague verses to ‘support’ whatever you want.

As my signature shows, a way you know you are wrong is the Hebrews, from which Genesis comes are monotheists and reject the trinity to this day.

So, it is odd, indeed, to take religious text used by its believers to ‘support’ the opposite of what they believe. And of course, that is what trinitarians have to do since all the authors of the Bible are monotheist Hebrews and the text must be read in that context.

In 66 books, the trinity and its Holey doctrine is made explicit no where. It’s such an important doctrine, in 66 books, it’s not mentioned once.

By contrast, God is referred to using the singular pronouns 10,000 times. So, there is that + the Sh’ma + 1C + Jesus saying God his Father is the only true God, who is greater than he, knows more than he, sent him, told him what to say and raised him from the dead + God gave the resurrected Jesus a revelation in Revelations 1.

 

[Cooper]

Sorry Mungo, what he did was show you that the "and" in both the scriptures and a rhyme that 2 separate and distinct people are involved in the event.

IOW when the rhyme says Jack "and" Jill ran up the hill, you would see in your mind, 2 distinct persons running up the hill. But somehow, if you are a trinitarian, and you say that God "and" Jesus ran up the hill, you would only be able to see in your mind, 1 persons running up the hill. Kind of weird, but a good analogy.

So a rhyme proves that trinitarian doctrine is not quite right.

I would see the very God in the flesh running up the hill.

Seeing as how Jack and Jill are body, soul and spirit, but One person:
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV)

we should be seeing the three persons, including the body, soul and spirit of the One God in the flesh, running up the hill with Jack and Jill.
.

 

[Wrangler]

Sorry Mungo, what he did was show you that the "and" in both the scriptures and a rhyme that 2 separate and distinct people are involved in the event.

IOW when the rhyme says Jack "and" Jill ran up the hill, you would see in your mind, 2 distinct persons running up the hill. But somehow, if you are a trinitarian, and you say that God "and" Jesus ran up the hill, you would only be able to see in your mind, 1 persons running up the hill. Kind of weird, but a good analogy.

So a rhyme proves that trinitarian doctrine is not quite right.

This reveals the trinitarian delusion is so strong, they CANNOT acknowledge how normal application of DEFINITION, LOGIC and LANGUAGE USAGE is not their friend.

Singular pronouns do not support multiple beings as part of God and his nature.

 

[Cooper]

This reveals the trinitarian delusion is so strong, they CANNOT acknowledge how normal application of DEFINITION, LOGIC and LANGUAGE USAGE is not their friend.

Singular pronouns do not support multiple beings as part of God and his nature.

America is One. The Lord is One.
.