The Case Against the Trinity

[jaybird]

I showed you why comparing Gen. 1:26-27 and the event of Sodom and Gomorrah does not work using Scripture. Refer back to post #584.

When sodom was destroyed was it done in the way of angels or the way of the Lord?

 

[jaybird]

Refer back to post #584.

This is a new question but it's ok as I knew you would refuse to answer anyway. Everytime you get proved wrong you bury your head in the sand, rewind back a few steps, and start over with the statement that just got proved wrong.
They have some mainstream Christian forum where if you question the trinity you get autobanned, you might want to try one of those because forums like this where it's open and we are actually allowed to debate our side, you guys get blown out of the water everytime, I'm sorry if that hurts but it's true

 

[jaybird]

It is the same question rephrased and the answer does not apply to Gen. 1:26-27. Refer back to post #584 for why.

No it's a different question.

1) who destroyed?
2) were they destroyed in an angel way or the Lords way?

you see? 2 different questions. i think what you meant to say was the end result of both questions is your argument being refuted. thats the same.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you think there is an agenda behind the trinity?

Yes. If you read When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, he delves into the agenda. In short, the Christians of the east were not trinitarians. However, the Western Christians embraced mysticism from Pagan's in the areas that Christianity spread. There is a mystical "oneness" that began to permeate the 3rd and 4th century era.

Or you think it was a genuine attempt to explain things for people to understand?

Absolutely not! Rubenstein shows it was all about power. It is telling the last letters from the Apostles warned of false teachers and false doctrine. The enemy was active even in their life time. The false doctrine is to displace the Good News, which is God made a pathway for our salvation through his Suffering Servant, the man Jesus, who became his son by giving up his life and becoming the Son at the resurrection. Adoptionism is the Good News! Us Saints are God's children through God's grace and man's obedience to Him, starting with Jesus, our Lord. Saying we have faith but no external signs of obedience is just word play.

You said it beautifully in an earlier post. Trinitarianism makes Jesus not one of us and we remain on the outside of the family. Not good.

32 We are here to bring you the good news of God’s promise to our ancestors, 33 which He has now fulfilled for our children by raising Jesus. Consider the promises fulfilled in Jesus. The psalmist says, “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.”
Acts 13:32-33 (Voice)

 

[Wrangler]

One thing that always bothered me is in the days of Jesus and the 12, they were just another Jewish sect practicing judaism, a few hundred years later you have 2 different religions. When Jesus taught crowds of Jews followed Him every where, after rome takes over Jews won't touch it with a 10 ft pole. A conspiracy?

Rubenstein explained the followers of the way attempted to ingratiate themselves to the Romans and blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. The NT writers depict it as a Jewish conspiracy. Jesus' "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" further divided the agenda of the Jewish rebels from those of the way.

I don't know but if I wanted to separate the Jews out of my religion I would come up with a doctrine that i knew no Jew would ever accept. And what do Jews today say when you talk to them about the faith? The first think out of their mouth will be "we don't worship three gods" and they may continue with the problems of the trinity and all the christology dogma. The things that Jesus actually taught and said won't even come up in the conversation.

Rubenstein revealed the ugly intertwining of politics and religion at the time.

I'm not saying this is how it went down, but it's an awful convenient coincidence how it worked out.

I respect the Jews holding the line on how Jesus did not meet their understanding of the requirements of the Messiah that Jesus did not meet. While I don't agree, I respect it and their steadfastness reinforces their mastery of terms, like one God does not mean any kind of 3.

In addition, I respect the Jews holding Saturday as the Sabbath Day. IMO, trinitarians moving the day to Sunday is just pure Antisemitism.

 

[Brakelite]

how do you know angels were not used? why do you think it would have been different than other times angels were used?

I know because scripture tells us concisely and succinctly that God used His Son to create all things. The Son then did precisely that. Including establishing the Sabbath as a memorial to that act of creation, which He claimed as His own when He was here in person. Angels don't claim to be Lord of the Sabbath. "The world was made by Him, but the world knew Him not". Seems that hasn't changed.

 

[Wrangler]

I know because scripture tells us concisely and succinctly that God used His Son to create all things.

No. The Scripture you are referring to is the re-created things.

 

[Brakelite]

Reading comprehension. Do you not see the word 'if' in jaybird's sentence?

The trinitarian trolls are so desperate not to concede a single point, they rely on deception and one logic fallacy after another. In this case, Appeal to Strawman. Let's pretend jaybird is making a statement that does not go with Scripture, let's pretend he did not use the word 'if' to make the obvious point that when, Elohim (heavenly beings) do things on Earth, they do so at the command of the Most High, the one and only LORD God.

In common language usage when a leader gives a command - Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - people still give credit to the commander. It is said 'Obama bombed so and so.' They say this even though we all know Obama did not literally bomb anyone. Such figurative use of language is more concise. God gave the order and the angel destroyed the first born males of Egypt. God gave the order and an angel destroyed Sodom and Gomorra.

I agree with the thesis behind your post. If jaybird was not implying that angels actually did create, then fine.
What makes you think I'm trinitarian?

 

[Wrangler]

I agree with the thesis behind your post. If jaybird was not implying that angels actually did create, then fine.

No. Not fine. He has engaged in speculation to make a point. Such speculation does not mean he is stating his doctrine - that others are quick to pounce on as incorrect. The point of his speculation remains but trinitarians who've trolled this thread use anything to divert attention from verses, logic and plain language usage that undermines your attention.

What makes you think I'm trinitarian?

See above.

 

[jaybird]

I know because scripture tells us concisely and succinctly that God used His Son to create all things. The Son then did precisely that. Including establishing the Sabbath as a memorial to that act of creation, which He claimed as His own when He was here in person. Angels don't claim to be Lord of the Sabbath. "The world was made by Him, but the world knew Him not". Seems that hasn't changed.

do you know of any examples in scripture where angels were sent from the Father, acted independently in their own name and then returned to the heavens?

 

[Brakelite]

do you know of any examples in scripture where angels were sent from the Father, acted independently in their own name and then returned to the heavens?

No. None. They all were under orders and the authority of the Father and the Son.

 

[Wrangler]

No. None. They all were under orders and the authority of the Father and the Son.

There are numerous verses about Satan and demons. Do you mean they are on Earth in compliance with the will of God?

There is a Scriptural reference where an angel came down from heaven at the order of Jesus? What verse is that?

 

[Brakelite]

No. Not fine. He has engaged in speculation to make a point. Such speculation does not mean he is stating his doctrine - that others are quick to pounce on as incorrect.

Oh. So none are permitted to criticize such speculation should they disagree with it? You may note that my disagreement focused on angelic involvement... Not on whether the Father had ultimate authority and glory for the existence of all things.

The point of his speculation remains but trinitarians who've trolled this thread use anything to divert attention from verses, logic and plain language usage that undermines your attention.

Maybe so. But there was no need for jaybird to introduce speculation regarding creation when the point he was making was clearly evident using other examples such as the one he was prominently advocating, the destruction of Sodom... With which I had no argument.

See above

None of which I have written implies I'm a trinitarian.
What it implies is that the Son was Creator, according to both John and Paul, working in the name of His Father. See 1 Corinthians 8:6, Col.1:16; Hebrews1.

 

[jaybird]

I see the same question rephrased, for the word "rephrase" means to "express (an idea or question) in an alternative way," and the answer does not apply to Gen. 1:26-27. Refer back to post #584 for why.

interesting that you take time out to claim its same question. a question you refuse to answer.
take time out to define "rephrase"
take time out to tell me the answer does not apply.
take time out to tell me to refer to another post.
take time out repeating same statement that was refuted.

but you do not take time to answer a simple question? why not just admit you have been proved wrong, everyone sees this and you know this as well, why else would you run and hide from a simple question.

 

[jaybird]

No. None. They all were under orders and the authority of the Father and the Son.

and any work they do is the Lords work, not their own which is what i been saying all along.

 

[Wrangler]

Oh. So none are permitted to criticize such speculation should they disagree with it? You may note that my disagreement focused on angelic involvement... Not on whether the Father had ultimate authority and glory for the existence of all things.

Criticize all you want. My point is any legitimate criticism is based on his speculation not on his actual theology.

Maybe so. But there was no need for jaybird to introduce speculation regarding creation when the point he was making was clearly evident using other examples such as the one he was prominently advocating, the destruction of Sodom... With which I had no argument.

Well, I reject the notion of acting only on 'need.' In short, I am an ally to jaybird. It is OK if he makes points beyond what is 'needed.'

None of which I have written implies I'm a trinitarian.
What it implies is that the Son was Creator, according to both John and Paul, working in the name of His Father. See 1 Corinthians 8:6, Col.1:16; Hebrews1.

That you actually reference 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a basis to claim the son was the creator, I'm not sure why you are denying your trinitarian ideas (or do you parse promoting the man-is-God thesis from trinitarianism?) NOTE: This thread is not limited to the case against the the man-is-God thesis.

 

[jaybird]

Yes. If you read When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, he delves into the agenda. In short, the Christians of the east were not trinitarians. However, the Western Christians embraced mysticism from Pagan's in the areas that Christianity spread. There is a mystical "oneness" that began to permeate the 3rd and 4th century era.

i watched a lecture called When Jesus Became God but it was bart ehrman who im not the biggest fan of, a bit of a sellout IMO. i know that rubenstein name but cant place him. im gonna have to look him up

Absolutely not! Rubenstein shows it was all about power. It is telling the last letters from the Apostles warned of false teachers and false doctrine. The enemy was active even in their life time. The false doctrine is to displace the Good News, which is God made a pathway for our salvation through his Suffering Servant, the man Jesus, who became his son by giving up his life and becoming the Son at the resurrection. Adoptionism is the Good News! Us Saints are God's children through God's grace and man's obedience to Him, starting with Jesus, our Lord. Saying we have faith but no external signs of obedience is just word play.

i think you may be right about the leaders at the top. but maybe not so much of the local leaders. i grew up going to baptist churches in rural arkansas, very few preachers taught it, i asked about it when i was a kid and the preacher told me it was a catholic thing. i think many of these guys knew the doctrine was full of holes, didnt want to deal with it, but agreed with it at seminary or they couldnt be an "authorized" baptist preacher.

You said it beautifully in an earlier post. Trinitarianism makes Jesus not one of us and we remain on the outside of the family. Not good.

32 We are here to bring you the good news of God’s promise to our ancestors, 33 which He has now fulfilled for our children by raising Jesus. Consider the promises fulfilled in Jesus. The psalmist says, “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.”
Acts 13:32-33 (Voice)

what i said earlier is how i have felt for many years and why i question it. it doesnt just conflict with scripture, it conflicts with how you serve the Father.

 

[Brakelite]

and any work they do is the Lords work, not their own which is what i been saying all along.

No argument.

 

[jaybird]

Yes. If you read When Jesus Became God by Rubenstein, he delves into the agenda. In short, the Christians of the east were not trinitarians. However, the Western Christians embraced mysticism from Pagan's in the areas that Christianity spread. There is a mystical "oneness" that began to permeate the 3rd and 4th century era.

i remember!
he did a lecture on Arius and Athanasius the Arius controversy. i will respond more later but i have to take a break or my wife is gonna throw the computer in the backyard.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus taught follow me, trinity teaches He is not one of us and can not be followed.
Trinity also teaches the Father, Son and Spirit are all one, they are part of this family which leaves us on the outside looking in. That doesn't sound good.

I noticed the trinitarian trolls did not respond to this excellent post.