The doctrine of the trinity, it's origins

[Dcopymope]

Let's see how simple it is, ...he is the son of Joseph & Mary.

So you are claiming it was not a virgin birth?

 

[DNB]

So you are claiming it was not a virgin birth?

No, I simply said that legally, he was the son of Mary & Joseph. Are we going to go through this whole thing again?

 

[Paul Christensen]

But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (Didache.)

Where does it say to do this in the New Testament?

When you only refer to one or two sources you get into all sorts of problems because you dig a hole for yourself and then you fall in it as is the case here. My study of baptism has covered I don't know how many years and how many books and how many denominations and of course the scriptures in the Greek and having the ministry of a teacher, if I find a claim that is not sustainable because so many others say otherwise, I dig even deeper to find support for the suspect comment. If it doesn't appear to be there I ditch the comment.

Like all my study I always start with what the scripture says and move out from there. And as that comment in the Didache is not in scripture it is suspect. As we all know, denominations have a tendency to make something say what they want it to say so even scripture itself has been altered to say certain things that the church wants to emphasize. I have heard all sorts of wonderful explanations from scripture for what the Catholics believe.

A case in question is the baptism in the trinity which was altered from its original form. As we all know when you lie invariably you have to keep lying to cover up the original lie. That is what has happened. I was brought up in the Baptist denomination and when I was baptized in water the trinitarian form was quoted to me. Not one of the other verses in Acts about baptism was mentioned even though every one of them contradicted the trinitarian baptism.

When I moved to the charismatic brethren, I was taught the whole counsel of God and it was very clear that trinitarian baptism was not supported by scripture overall.

I think that those who do baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are taking Matthew 28:19 literally:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
But in practice, Peter's instruction was followed:
"Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days" (Acts 10:48).
"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name"(Acts 22:16).
"And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:4-5).

All the other Acts references concerning baptism, no actual name or formula is used. But what we have when Peter and Paul baptised people, it was in the name of Jesus, or calling upon the name of Jesus.
There are no references to anyone being baptised in the name of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, except that Peter said that when a person is baptised in the name of Jesus, they will receive the Holy Spirit.

So I don't think that the formula "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in baptism is supported in Acts, because it was never used by Peter or Paul. So I don't think that the formula is a very convincing proof of the trinity.

Yet, what convinces me about it, is that the Scripture clearly speaks of Jesus being our advocate at the throne of the Father, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, and that we can direct prayers to the Father, to Jesus, or to the Holy Spirit. This means, if that is so, if Jesus is not God, then we are committing idolatry by praying to Jesus, because the first commandment says, "I am the Lord your God and you will have no other gods but Me." So, if Jesus is not God, then we are praying to another god which is not the Living God of the Bible.
If Jesus is not God then Stephen, as he was dying, committed idolatry:
"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59). Only God can receive a believer's spirit at death as Jesus prayed when He gave up His life on the cross:
"Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last" (Luke 23:46).

 

[Paul Christensen]

Me too, (1st part). ...No, not exactly, you don't have to necessarily be rude or aggressive, just deliberately annoying and harassing, like this guy was.

I guess that some here think I am annoying and harassing because I am like a dog with a bone when I won't let go and concede an issue! :-)

 

[Dcopymope]

No, I simply said that legally, he was the son of Mary & Joseph. Are we going to go through this whole thing again?

.......Yes, we might as well since you are denying the deity of Jesus.

 

[DNB]

I guess that some here think I am annoying and harassing because I am like a dog with a bone when I won't let go and concede an issue! :)

possibly, but the intent is quite different. You're verbose enough that it shows that you're sincerely trying to get a point across.
Indicative of the troll, are the extremely brief and ambiguous questions, that have no definitive answer. They try to toy with people, not intimately engage.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Hi H2S, if I was to offer an opinion, i would say that ultimately, it reflects how we perceive God. By stating that this is how we believe that God has revealed his Word to us, says something about Him. i.e. Has He defined the trinity in the Biblical manner that He did?
When we describe His judicial system in any particular manner, eg. God obeyed Himself and raised Himself, it reveals what we think about His wisdom and justice.
When we define His son, as either a deity or a man, again, it says a lot about how we regard God's plan for mankind.
If we claim that God is one, and three-in-one, we have made an extremely profound pronouncement about His ontology, which can be defaming with certain definitions eg: is there redundancy in the Godhead having 3 omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient persons? ..why have 3, when only 1 will suffice to create the universe, answer all prayers, be providential to His creation, interact with immanency, retain his aseity, etc...
In short, everything that we believe about God and His Word, reflects a certain esteem that we have for Him, in His ontology, wisdom and justice.

Also, I feel that the doctrine of the trinity has repelled so many Jews and Muslims from becoming Christians. They take great offense to God becoming a man, and being mocked, ridiculed, slapped and beaten by His own creation.
What one believes, reflects a great deal about where their heart is at.

This is why when we preach or share the gospel, we keep away from things like the trinity and other illogical events in the Bible which can be understood only when a person is converted to Christ. This is because the natural man cannot accept the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. So we deal with the person's own conscience and their view of their own goodness. The Holy Spirit's role is to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment to come, and so, to share the gospel with the involvement of the Holy Spirit we must do the same - convince an unsaved person of their personal sin, their need for righteousness, and the expectation of judgment to come - then we can present Christ as their "parachute" in taking upon Himself the penalty for their sin.

Once we can get the person converted to Christ, then we can make some of these other aspects of the Bible more clear to them. The nature and character of God is a mystery (otherwise He wouldn't be God), and because we know only in part (1 Corinthians 13:9), we will never come to a real consensus about what it really entails.

 

[DNB]

.......Yes, we might as well since you are denying the deity of Jesus.

I 200% deny the deity of Christ, and considered it heresy and blasphemy, just for the record.
But, I'm sorry, I have expressed my Christology throughout this thread many times, so I haven't the stamina right now to reiterate. It's 1am, i have work tomorrow....
I'll probably talk to you tomorrow...thx!

 

[Paul Christensen]

Seriously, after all this, we've gone back to square one?

And again around the mountain we go! Or is it the mulberry bush???

 

[DNB]

This is why when we preach or share the gospel, we keep away from things like the trinity and other illogical events in the Bible which can be understood only when a person is converted to Christ. This is because the natural man cannot accept the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. So we deal with the person's own conscience and their view of their own goodness. The Holy Spirit's role is to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment to come, and so, to share the gospel with the involvement of the Holy Spirit we must do the same - convince an unsaved person of their personal sin, their need for righteousness, and the expectation of judgment to come - then we can present Christ as their "parachute" in taking upon Himself the penalty for their sin.

Once we can get the person converted to Christ, then we can make some of these other aspects of the Bible more clear to them. The nature and character of God is a mystery (otherwise He wouldn't be God), and because we know only in part (1 Corinthians 13:9), we will never come to a real consensus about what it really entails.

That's fine, will you say then that belief in the trinity is not imperative to salvation, which, it sounded like you just implied?

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's fine, will you say then that belief in the trinity is not imperative to salvation, which, it sounded like you just implied?

Well, Peter didn't include it when he instructed them how to get saved. He said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38-39). And Paul said, " “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.” (Acts 16:31).

No mention of the trinity there! But when Paul wrote his letters to the churches, he was not writing to the unsaved, but to believers already converted to Christ, and so He could deal with more weighty matters which neither he or Peter could do for unsaved or those newly converted to Christ - although Paul had issues with the Corinthians because in many ways they were behaving like spiritual children instead of being the mature believers they should be. I guess that he would have been frustrated with them, wondering after all his, Peter's and Apollos' teaching they had learned basically nothing!

I felt like that just these last two weeks when I learned that I had been sharing the gospel all the wrong way and treating people with no Judeo-Christian world view as if they believed the Bible, and learned why when they said they didn't believe the Bible I was scuppered with no answers. This was because I was trying to share the gospel with neo-pagan "Greeks" as if they were "Jews" who knew and believed the Scriptures. I was trying to use 1950s evangelism techniques to 1980s neo pagans! Didn't work! I have now discovered how Paul preached to the pagan Greeks at Athens, and he went about it in a totally different way.

So, we never stop learning, even though like me, after 50 years in the faith! Sometimes I feel like I have gone three steps forward and two back!

 

[Heart2Soul]

Hi H2S, if I was to offer an opinion, i would say that ultimately, it reflects how we perceive God. By stating that this is how we believe that God has revealed his Word to us, says something about Him. i.e. Has He defined the trinity in the Biblical manner that He did?
When we describe His judicial system in any particular manner, eg. God obeyed Himself and raised Himself, it reveals what we think about His wisdom and justice.
When we define His son, as either a deity or a man, again, it says a lot about how we regard God's plan for mankind.
If we claim that God is one, and three-in-one, we have made an extremely profound pronouncement about His ontology, which can be defaming with certain definitions eg: is there redundancy in the Godhead having 3 omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient persons? ..why have 3, when only 1 will suffice to create the universe, answer all prayers, be providential to His creation, interact with immanency, retain his aseity, etc...
In short, everything that we believe about God and His Word, reflects a certain esteem that we have for Him, in His ontology, wisdom and justice.

Also, I feel that the doctrine of the trinity has repelled so many Jews and Muslims from becoming Christians. They take great offense to God becoming a man, and being mocked, ridiculed, slapped and beaten by His own creation.
What one believes, reflects a great deal about where their heart is at.

Thank you for your input....like I said this is something I am in prayer about and I know He will speak the Truth....
If you would take a moment read this:
In the medical field (I am a graduate RN) we are taught to treat the WHOLE person that is defined as body, mind, and spirit.
So if we have a patient we treat all 3 parts of what makes this person a WHOLE being....example someone is admitted in the hospital for treatment....the complaint is chest pain so we run tests to diagnose what is causing it...this is the body
We also do an assessment of their history by asking questions that address their lifestyle such as home environment, relationships, diet.... (this is mind)....and then finally we respect their religious beliefs and support them in whatever faith they adhere to.....(this is spirit)
What research has shown if you only treat the physical problem and unknowingly this person is under a lot of stress, has no home, and maybe gets a meal that day and maybe not then you have only treated the symptom and not the cause.
Also, if you focus on the body and mind (physical and mental health) and neglect the spirit then you continue to have reoccurances of the same problem....'
So bottom line when we treat patients we treat all 3 aspects of their WHOLE being.

Now here is why I mentioned all this....we are each individual but with 3 specific and separate aspects that must work together in unity to be healthy....if any one of the 3 are neglected it affects the WHOLE being.

So I know we are not the Godhead but we are created in His image and likeness so I can see where people can conclude God is 3 persons in one...because we are essentially 3 in 1.....

 

[Enoch111]

Where does it say to do this in the New Testament?

That was not the purpose of the quotation. It was meant to show that between the time of the apostles, and the end of the second century, Christians were being baptized according to the commandment of Christ -- in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the pouring was for specific situations, as you can already see, not a substitute for Christian baptism by immersion.

 

[marksman]

That was not the purpose of the quotation. It was meant to show that between the time of the apostles, and the end of the second century, Christians were being baptized according to the commandment of Christ -- in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the pouring was for specific situations, as you can already see, not a substitute for Christian baptism by immersion.

The purpose of the quotation was to try and prove you were right and I was wrong because you implied because that is what the Didache said so it must be right.

As for your comment about sprinkling, I have seen that too many times and it is complete rubbish and not according to scripture as NO ON in scripture was sprinkled.

 

[Paul Christensen]

The purpose of the quotation was to try and prove you were right and I was wrong because you implied because that is what the Didache said so it must be right.

As for your comment about sprinkling, I have seen that too many times and it is complete rubbish and not according to scripture as NO ON in scripture was sprinkled.

I think that by the end of the second century, the church was slipping into formalism, and so formulae for baptism was becoming more important than before. In the First Century during the time of the Apostles, no set formula was used, because it wasn't a ritual. They probably went to the nearest river and dunked them. They might have said, "I baptise you in the name of Jesus", then again they might not have, but the baptiser and the "baptisee" knew it was in the name of Jesus neverthless.

But once the church became formalised and the bishops gained more authority than the Holy Spirit, then baptism became a ritual with a set formula, and a liturgy was formed for it.

 

[marksman]

I think that those who do baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are taking Matthew 28:19 literally:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
But in practice, Peter's instruction was followed:
"Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days" (Acts 10:48).
"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name"(Acts 22:16).
"And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:4-5).

All the other Acts references concerning baptism, no actual name or formula is used. But what we have when Peter and Paul baptised people, it was in the name of Jesus, or calling upon the name of Jesus.
There are no references to anyone being baptised in the name of the Father, or of the Holy Spirit, except that Peter said that when a person is baptised in the name of Jesus, they will receive the Holy Spirit.

So I don't think that the formula "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in baptism is supported in Acts, because it was never used by Peter or Paul. So I don't think that the formula is a very convincing proof of the trinity.

Yet, what convinces me about it, is that the Scripture clearly speaks of Jesus being our advocate at the throne of the Father, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, and that we can direct prayers to the Father, to Jesus, or to the Holy Spirit. This means, if that is so, if Jesus is not God, then we are committing idolatry by praying to Jesus, because the first commandment says, "I am the Lord your God and you will have no other gods but Me." So, if Jesus is not God, then we are praying to another god which is not the Living God of the Bible.
If Jesus is not God then Stephen, as he was dying, committed idolatry:
"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59). Only God can receive a believer's spirit at death as Jesus prayed when He gave up His life on the cross:
"Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last" (Luke 23:46).

When I was doing an in-depth study of baptism, I knew that there had to be a discrepancy with the baptism in the trinity when all the actual incidences of baptism were always in the name of Jesus or something similar. I asked myself why the church completely ignored what Jesus said if that is what he said?

The only conclusion I could come to was that the church was disobedient and ignores what Jesus said OR Jesus never said it.

Now as we all know or we should know that the best commentary on the bible is the bible so taking that to its logical conclusion if there are 12 verses that all say the same thing and there is one that doesn't, then logically you are going to doubt the one.

After much study it is clear to me the church baptised in the name of Jesus or something similar and that the baptism in the trinity is not in the original script. In fact, I found out it was changed in the second century by the false church to accommodate their theology.

They came unstuck however because they forgot to change all the other verses about baptism.

So, if you know what you are talking about and know how to exegete scripture you can confidently say that what Jesus said was, in fact, to go and baptise in my name.

Apart from the fact that whatever was done in the New Testament church, it was always done in the name of Jesus, not the trinity. That in itself speaks volumes.

 

[Paul Christensen]

When I was doing an in-depth study of baptism, I knew that there had to be a discrepancy with the baptism in the trinity when all the actual incidences of baptism were always in the name of Jesus or something similar. I asked myself why the church completely ignored what Jesus said if that is what he said?

The only conclusion I could come to was that the church was disobedient and ignores what Jesus said OR Jesus never said it.

Now as we all know or we should know that the best commentary on the bible is the bible so taking that to its logical conclusion if there are 12 verses that all say the same thing and there is one that doesn't, then logically you are going to doubt the one.

After much study it is clear to me the church baptised in the name of Jesus or something similar and that the baptism in the trinity is not in the original script. In fact, I found out it was changed in the second century by the false church to accommodate their theology.

They came unstuck however because they forgot to change all the other verses about baptism.

So, if you know what you are talking about and know how to exegete scripture you can confidently say that what Jesus said was, in fact, to go and baptise in my name.

Apart from the fact that whatever was done in the New Testament church, it was always done in the name of Jesus, not the trinity. That in itself speaks volumes.

I agree. While I was reading your post I thought that Jesus was not putting forward "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" as a formulaic ritual for baptism. But to differentiate Christian baptism from the baptism of John which was one of repentance. John's baptism was for unconverted Jews to demonstrate their faith in the Messiah to come by repenting of their sins in preparation because the arrival of the Messiah was imminent.

But believers' baptism is for someone who has already repented and come to Christ by God's grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, and so their baptism is a demonstration that they are now calling on the name of Christ for their salvation and demonstrating it publicly.

 

[101G]

According too your post the second advent has already occurred.

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply, second, no, that's in ERROR, for he, the Lord Jesus returned in "Spirit", not in Flesh, but the second advent is when "EVERY EYE" will see him, listen, Revelation 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen". see, at Pentecost, "NOT EVERY EYE" saw him, because his came in "Spirit". now watch the scriptures, Hebrews 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation". ok when did Jesus appear the first time? in Bethlehem as a babe, and his second time "appearing" is when he returns as King, in a glorified body for all to see.

understand me now? that was a good question. and I also thak you for looking at that, for it tells me you're thinking, and that's good. ask question, because if not.... "ye have not because ye ASKED NOT". again thanks again for the question.

Hoped that helped.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

I'm a bit like Columbo: "Just one more thing!"
How do you interpret this:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

The JWs get around this one by adding one small word to the text: "And the Word was a God".

My bone wasn't quite buried!! :)

(SMILE), and again thanks for the reply, If memory serves me correctly, the JW say "a" god. and that's God with the small "g" in God unless they change. either way let's look at it. if they used the small case "g" in God this scripture will eliminate that, listen, Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand". so here clearly, there is no "god" small case "g" god "WITH" God, so that completely eliminates any such claims of "a" god WITH God, as John 1:1 states.

now if they switch to a capitalization of God, that want work either, listen Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" one more, Isaiah 45:21 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me".
well that completely eliminates any such claims of "a" God WITH God. so either way, the claim is in ERROR.

Thanks for the reply. hoped that helped.

PICJAG.

 

[101G]

The Breaking Down of the Trinity
"we suggest that one read this carefully"​

GINOLJC to all.
What the trinitarians cannot afford is an eliminations of the “PERSON(s)” in their Doctrine. it have been pointed out that the Bible states that there are not THREE Separate and Distinct Persons in the Godhead. this lie has been exposed. and those who still believe in three separate and distinct persons has been deceive in their belief, and has not entered the narrow gate. we will category, by scripture, show step by step that there is not a three persons Trinity, but only one person in the Godhead. the answer to the Godhead is Just what the bible states, God is “ANOTHER” of himself shared ….. Now in glorified Flesh.

Step #1. The coming of the, “ANOTHER”, of God, Foretold by God himself.
scripture. Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me”.

God’s “OWN” Arm? yes, if it’s his own ARM, and his “Own” arm brought salvation unto him then we can see why our Lord, who is called the “Son” could speak and talk to his “OWN” Spirit, the Holy Spirit, as well as in prayer as some are confused on, lets clear us this concern.

understand, God is a “Spirit”, meaning in this “created” world the Spirit is “Abstract”. what do abstract mean? answer, 1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances. 2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice. LETS put it in Layman terms, Something that cannot be “SEEN”, or “Touched”, with out senses… ok. by coming into this world, God manifested himself in flesh so that he could be, “SEEN”, or “Touch” by our senses, example in scripture. 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life”. so John saw God, but not at Genesis1:1, but when he God came into the world at John 1:1. hold those thoughts in your mind.

So God is Abstract, not seen, or touched by human hands, (as Spirit). and the opposite of “abstract” is “Concrete”, meaning what we can see God, and touch him as in the example in 1 John 1:1. now lest see God speaking of his coming in flesh as a “Distinct”, but not a “Separate” person, but as a Entity that is the NUMERICAL SHARE of the Spirit, (his own arm, meaning the same Nature). this NUMERICAL SHARE is “Distinct” from the Spirit that it came from, or emanated from, only in “FORM”, meaning the “Distinct” NUMERICAL SHARE is “Concrete”. (BINGO) this is the the basic element of the Godhead.

NOW, lets see this NUMERICAL “DISTINCT” SHARE of God, (his own arm) in concrete form.

Step #2. The “CONCRETE” Form, and the identity of the “Distinct ” NUMERICAL SHARE God himself in FLESH.
Scripture, Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? (STOP, here’s God’s “OWN ARM” being reveal, meaning he God, which is "abstract" is being revealed, or is (manifested in flesh).

Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him". (STOP, God's OWN ARM is a "HE", BINGO, his OWNSELF, his "own arm". now we see why when he say "my" Father, in concrete form, he's saying my Spirit. and "abstract" the Spirit is saying "my" Son is saying my BODY on earth)

Isaiah 53:3 "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isaiah 53:4 "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:5 "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS JESUS THE CHRIST.. THE "SON" RIGHT, WELL JESUS THE CHRIST IS GOD HIMSELF, (HIS OWN ARM), IN FLESH AND THIS IS WHERE THE “TRINITY” BREAKDOWN.

Step #3. The the coming of God, (his own Arm), in Flesh.
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”.
God is with us by being in flesh and bone with blood. now here’s the crust of the matter, “WHO” is with us, the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost? the trinity doctrine say, it is the son who is with us, which we all agree, but here’s the problem. in the doctrine of the trinity, it states that the Father is not the son, and vice versa, but the Father and the son have the same “ONE” nature. well if it was the son who came and G2758 κενόω kenoo or made empty himself, that means the NATURE of God was made G2758 κενόω kenoo. meaning “all” of what one say is God is “EMPTY”, and that means he, God is not all powerful, and that means that the universe comes to an end because without his power he could not uphold everything that he has created. but since everything is upheld, that means A. Jesus is not God, (but the bible say he is), or B. a part, or a piece of God was G2758 κενόω kenoo, (and that would be a problem), and if so then one either has Two or More “Spirits/God(s)”, and that’s God with the “s” at the end indication more than one. or it’s God himself (which the bible clearly states it’s him, his OWN ARM), so all those soulitions must be reconcile.

we must reconcile God, (who is a Spirit), in flesh as HIMSELF, as distinct, but not Separate, nor a part or piece of himself. for if we go that route then as said, we will have two separate and distinct God, which the trinity believer dropped. well this is where “Diversified Oneness” comes in at which explains who, and why God can be “Abstract” and “Concrete” at the same time while being God with all his powers and upholding the universe and everything else at the same time, when in flesh and while in that flesh be made G2758 κενόω kenoo.

see the three person theory breaks down when our God shows up in flesh, if as a separate Person with the same nature. one must explain how he exist as Father and son with the same Nature, if the “Son” was G2758 κενόω kenoo in flesh. THAT’S WHERE THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY BREAKS DOWN AT.

so is a trinitarian can explain this, then their doctrine has a chance to stay afloat. so the call goes out to all trinitarian to explain this problem of the Three person, where one is G2758 κενόω kenoo in flesh.


PICJAG.