The truth about Trinity

[A Freeman]

For the sake of balance.

As you are, or should be, aware, there is no consensus as to its meaning, and scholarship continues to debate the point.

So to say 'proving yet again' is really only to assert that you believe your opinion of the matter is indisputable, whereas I, along with a range of scholars, can approach the same question and show that the phrase does not exclude the idea of Jesus Christ being the Divine Logos, the Son of God.

There is no balance between truth (good) and lies (evil). And yes, what has been shared is indisputable, as hundreds of passages prove beyond any doubt (reasonable or otherwise).

The difficulty is that religion, like the legal system, has redefined key terms so that people no longer understand what a Father or a Son are, or their relationship to one another, or that one means one and three means three, among a lengthy list of terms that should be obvious to all. Please see the list below, which certainly isn't comprehensive, but should give a reasonable idea of how desperate and dishonest the efforts have been to try to make the 3=1 pagan deity commonly referred to as the "trinity" work in people's tortured minds, even though the term "trinity" is found nowhere in Scripture either directly or by inference.

Appointed/Appointed One
Anointed/Anointed One
Born
Brethren
Creature
Father
Firstborn/Firstbegotten (first-created)
Equal to
Given
God
Godhead
Grace
Greater than
Heir
Image
Inheritance
Invisible
Made
Man
Mediator
Nothing
Of
Omnipotent
Omnipresent
Omniscient
One
Son
Son of God
Son of Man
The Head of
The MOST High
Three
Two
Visible

NONE of the above terms have to be redefined for someone to understand that there is ONE God, and that the FIRST Creature He created was Prince Michael/Christ (Col. 1:12-15; Rev. 3:14).

Colossians 1:12-15
1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, Which hath made us meet to be sharers of the inheritance of the holy people in Light:
1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into The Kingdom of His dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the community of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God;


P.S. Shouldn't it be enough for God to say He is NOT a man, nor the son of man, to know that Jesus cannot possibly be God if Jesus repeatedly referred to himself as "the Son of Man"?

 

[Thomas]

There is no balance between truth (good) and lies (evil). And yes, what has been shared is indisputable, as hundreds of passages prove beyond any doubt (reasonable or otherwise).

Nonsense.

What you mean is all the scholars are wrong ... but you are right. Go figure ...

The difficulty is that religion, like the legal system, has redefined key terms ...

Ah, here's a basic error.

The nature of Divine Revelation necessarily calls for a new understanding. Were that not so, it would be the same-old, same-old.

so that people no longer understand what a Father or a Son are, or their relationship to one another, or that one means one and three means three, among a lengthy list of terms that should be obvious to all.

LOL, you clearly have no idea ...

Colossians 1:12-15
1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, Which hath made us meet to be sharers of the inheritance of the holy people in Light:
1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into The Kingdom of His dear Son:
1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

If only you understood that.

 

[A Freeman]

What you mean is all the scholars are wrong ...

Perhaps not all of them, but the overwhelming majority are "the blind leading the blind" exactly as Christ said.

 

[moralorel]

Adding to the Scripture cited in bowwow's excellent post, please see Jesus referring to himself over 80 times in the Gospel accounts as "the Son of Man”, proving yet again that Jesus -- born of the virgin Mary in the town of Bethlehem of Judaea -- could not possibly be God (nor ever claimed to be God):

Matthew (30): 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, 11:19, 12:8, 12:32, 12:40, 13:37, 13:41, 16:13, 16:27, 16:28, 17:9, 17:12, 17:22, 18:11, 19:28, 20:18, 20:28, 24:27, 24:30, 24:37, 24:39, 24:44, 25:13, 25:31, 26:2, 26:24, 26:45, 26:64

Mark (14): 2:10, 2:28, 8:31, 8:38, 9:9, 9:12, 9:31, 10:33, 10:45, 13:26. 13:34, 14:21, 14:41, 14:62,

Luke (26): 5:24, 6:4, 6:22, 7:34, 9:22, 9:26, 9:44, 9:56, 9:58, 11:30, 12:8, 12:10, 12:40, 17:22, 17:24, 17:26, 17:30, 18:8, 18:31, 19:10, 21:27, 21:36, 22:22, 22:48, 22:69, 24:7

John (11): 1:51, 3:13, 3:14, 5:27, 6:27, 6:53, 6:62, 8:19, 12:23, 12:34, 13:31

John 4:23-24
4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.
4:24 God [is] a Spirit (Num. 23:19): and they that worship Him must worship [Him] with their spirit (Being) and in Truth.

Jesus isn't the Father. But He is the God of the OT. Or do you care to explain to us here who Abraham met face to face and worshipped? Or who Joshua met face to face and worshipped at Jericho? I assume you know that Jesus said no man has met the Father. Unless worshipping angels is somehow encouraged, they must have been worshipping Jesus their Creator God.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Jesus isn't the Father.

Jesus their Creator God.

I've become a little confused about that of late, because I used to think the Father was supposed to be the Creator.
There used to be a song which was sung as a round, ♪♪♫"Father I adore you, Jesus I adore you, Spirit I adore you"♫♪♫
But it was at times reworded ♪♫♫"Creator I adore you, Savior I adore you, Holy Ghost I adore you"♪♫♫♪

 

[moralorel]

I've become a little confused about that of late, because I used to think the Father was supposed to be the Creator.
There used to be a song which was sung as a round, ♪♪♫"Father I adore you, Jesus I adore you, Spirit I adore you"♫♪♫
But it was at times reworded ♪♫♫"Creator I adore you, Savior I adore you, Holy Ghost I adore you"♪♫♫♪

I explained my take on the subject a year or 2 ago. I don't remember which thread. I definitely see why people get confused. I bet Mr. Armstrong had something written on the matter. If I do recall he believed that Jesus was God as well. But don't quote me on that.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I explained my take on the subject a year or 2 ago. I don't remember which thread. I definitely see why people get confused. I bet Mr. Armstrong had something written on the matter. If I do recall he believed that Jesus was God as well. But don't quote me on that.

Growing up I knew that my grandfather ranted when I came home from a local Methodist youth bible study asking what the trinity was.
So years later I thought maybe his group were biblical unitarians.
Later reading more I understand their theology was more binitarian and that they did have a high Christology, I do not quite remember how they conceptualized it but it could be looked up.
It is hard for me to see how binitarians are different from bitheists, and how trinitarians are different from tritheists.