The Trinity....why I no longer believe in this doctrine (salvation, soul)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was raised Catholic, but later on in adulthood I started attending other churches. I believed the trinity just because that was what I was taught. But as I started reading the Bible on my own, my belief in the trinity became strained. I basically ended up asking myself "Do I cling to a belief even though I now know there are many verses that show it cannot be true?" After years of internal debate, I finally decided I could not, in good conscience, continue holding to the doctrine of the trinity. Below are some of the reasons why:
========= John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
If Jesus says The Father is greater than He was, then how can the trinity doctrine say that there are 3 co-EQUAL gods in one?
============ John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Jesus says that the Father was His God? How can God have a God? How many Gods are there then, if Jesus was also God according to the trinity doctrine?
============ John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
If Jesus is God, then why couldn't He do things on His own?
============ John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Jesus says that the Father who lives within Him is the one given credit for His good works. If Jesus was God, why couldn't He do the good works Himself?
============= Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God...
Jesus makes it plain here. He considers Himself separate from God.
============== Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Trinitarians say Jesus was "fully God and fully man"...how could God increase in wisdom and in favor with Himself?
============= Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jesus was tempted by Satan, but we are told that God cannot be tempted.
=============== Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
God is all-knowing, but Jesus did not know when He would be returning to earth.
=============== John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
God gave Jesus His Spirit beyond measure. If Jesus was God, how can this verse make sense? And If Jesus was God, why would He need to be given the Holy Spirit?
=============== Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
God tells us that He is not human.
============== Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
God, in speaking about the coming Messiah, tells Moses that He will raise up a prophet that will be like Moses. Now, if Jesus the Messiah was God, then He certainly was not at all like unto Moses…and if Jesus was God why would God the Father need to put His words in Jesus' mouth?
============== Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
The statements in this passage make it very clear that Jesus is not God incarnate. If Jesus was God, then how could Satan offer to give Him something that was already His? Satan has no power or authority to give God the kingdoms of the world. Just think about it...God might be allowing satan to have control of the kingdoms of the world now, but how ludicrous would it be for satan to offer to give back to God anything, since God is ultimately in control of absolutely everything?
And consider Jesus' response: ""Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."" If Jesus was God, does this answer make any sense? He is telling satan that He (Jesus) will only serve God. Why would He say such a thing if He himself was God?"
================ Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Peter is giving the sermon of his life. He and the apostles just received the Holy Spirit and he is preaching to a large crowd in Jerusalem for the first time. Does he say that Jesus was God? No, he says Jesus was a man approved of God and that God used Jesus to do mighty works through Jesus. If there was a trinity, Peter, being empowered by the Holy Spirit, did not preach it.
Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Here is another passage spoken by Peter and the Apostles soon after The Messiah's ascension into heaven. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned here, but not as being a three in one trinity. God is said to have raised Jesus from the dead and exalted Him to be our Prince and Savior. Peter also says that God GIVES His Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. This hardly sounds like the Holy Spirit is a separate entity that acts on His own. Again, there is no mention or indication that Peter or the Apostles believe in a trinity.
============= 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
The Apostle Paul believes that Yahweh, The Father, is the one true God. Paul believes that Jesus is his Lord, but the title "Lord" does not mean "God". Jesus is the Messiah…the Annointed One sent by God to be our Lord and Savior. It is clear here that Paul does not combine the two, The Father and Jesus, into one God. He tells us that God is one (not three) and that Jesus is the man who mediates between God and mankind.
Acts 17:29 For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
The Apostle Paul here again states it plainly. He is speaking to pagans in Athens, describing to them the one true God that they do not know. Here is a perfect opportunity to tell them about Jesus being God. It may be the one chance in their lives for them to hear the gospel. Knowing the importance of this moment, does Paul say God is a trinity and that Jesus is a God-Man? No. Does he tell them they must believe in a trinity in order to be "true Christians"? No. He tells them that God will judge the world by "that man whom He hath ordained."
================ 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This is the main verse used to support the trinity doctrine. However, that interpretation fails to acknowledge how the term "one" is used throughout the Bible. It often means people working together or acting as one, not that they are actually literally one. (Also note that many Bible versions omit this verse believing it was not original to the earliest manuscripts).
Ezra 3:1 And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem.
Several Old Testament verses show how the term "One" was used to describe a body of people acting together as one.
Genesis 41:25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26 The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is one.
The Pharoah had two separate dreams, but those two dreams were one in meaning.
John 17: 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.
In this passage Jesus is praying to the Father that His followers may be one as He is one with the Father so that we all can be one together. Does He mean we are all part of a "trinity"? No. He means we are all united in purpose and love for God.
============== Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This passage is often used in an attempt to prove that God is more than one being since the plural words "us" and "our" are used. But is that really what the original Hebrew words mean? In the very next verse the singular "his" is used, so to be consistent why isn't that translated as "their"? The very same Hebrew words were used in verse 27 as in 26, so why is it plural in 26 alone? Studying the source text shows that the plural pronoun translation is not correctly used here based on the source Hebrew. Trinitarians say that the Hebrew word for God, 'elohiym, is in a plural form...which to them means more than one god is speaking. However, this ignores the fact that the Hebrew word can mean plural but it is also used to show "intensive" or "of great importance". When Israelites wrote of God, they used pronouns in this intensive form out of respect for the one true God.
God further emphasized His point about being one in the verses below, which also use the same original Hebrew word for God:
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.
Isaiah 45: 5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
During the whole Old Testament times the Israelites believed in a God who called Himself Yahweh and who told them that He alone was God and there were no other gods beside Him. Notice He did not say "No other gods beside us"?
So why are these straight forward verses ignored? If God really was just one God made of only one being, what else would He have to say in order to get people to believe Him?
============= John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
The beginning verses of the gospel of John are often cited as proof that Jesus was God. After all, this passage is speaking about Jesus, isn't it? It uses "him" to enforce that idea, doesn't it? Below is this same passage from William Tyndale's original english version:
"In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word. The same was in the beginning with god. All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was. In it was life, And life was the light of men, And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not."
Tyndale wrote the first ever English version of the new testament. He suffered greatly at the hands of the powerful church back then because they did not want the scriptures translated into English so that people could read it on their own. And notice how he uses the word "it". Tyndale risked his life to faithfully translate the scriptures into common English for people to read, and he obviously did not see any subtle references to a trinity in this passage. Tyndale seemed to recognize the reference John was making back to Genesis 1 where God spoke the world into existence with His words (also in Psalm 33:6). Why did the later English translations change the "it" to "him"?
============= John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
This verse is often cited as proof that Jesus claimed to be God by using "I Am", similar to what Yahweh used in Exodus 3:14. However, this takes the verse completely out of context and ignores the normal use of "I Am" in other verses of the New Testament. Jesus is saying here that "I am He"...in other words, He is the promised Messiah that Abraham and Israel looked forward to. Paul used the same "I am" in Acts 26:29...was Paul claiming to be God? Of course not. In other verses in the Bible this "I Am" is usually shown as "I am he" or "I am the one". See also Mark 13:6 and John 13:19. And even just a few verses later is another instance:
John 9:8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
So why in the case of verse 8:58 was the same Greek only translated as "I am"?
By saying "before" Jesus is not saying He existed prior to Abraham. In John 8:56 He says that Abraham "rejoiced to see my day". This is similar to John 12:41 and Hebrews 11:10. God allowed Old Testament prophets to see in advance the coming of the Messiah and His Kingdom.
Trinitarians say that the Jews picked up stones to throw at Jesus because He was claiming to be God. But He was not claiming to be God. The Jews picked up stones to throw at Jesus because He was outright claiming to be The Messiah. On the night of Jesus "trial" by the leaders, Jesus was not convicted for claiming to be God...He was convicted for claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God ( See Matthew 26:63).
============== Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
This verse is often used to say that Jesus is God. But being an image of someone else certainly does not mean that. If a son is said to look or act just like his dad, do we then say the son must therefore BE his dad? Also, being firstborn means Jesus is the main piece of God's creation...He is the most important, He is the preeminent. It does not mean birth order. Mark 12:28-31 is a perfect example of this as Jesus describes what is the "first" commandment. It is obvious He means what is the most important commandment, not the number one commandment chronologically.
============= John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
In this verse Jesus is praying to the Father. If Jesus was God, why would He need to pray? And notice that He calls the Father "The One True God". He does not say, "we together are the one true God." This verse is a key passage you need to consider as you study the trinity doctrine. How can the trinity be true in light of this verse?
============= Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
This statement made by the Messiah is called the SHEMA. It is what Israel considers the most important statement of truth in the Scriptures. It is repeated several times throughout the Bible, and is emphasized here by the Messiah. If there was a trinity and Jesus Himself was God, then how does the SHEMA make any sense at all? God is telling us over and over that there is only one God, and that He alone is the one true God. That is pretty simple and straight-forward. Nowhere is a trinity mentioned in the Bible. Trinitarians say that the trinity is "implied" and that it is a great mystery of the faith. Well, God gave us the Bible to reveal Himself to us so there would be no mystery of who He is...and He tells us there is only one God, Yahweh The Father. So where did the idea of the trinity doctrine come from if it is not clearly revealed in God's word? If God indeed really is one and only one, what more would He need to say to prove it?
============= ??NO VERSE??
One of the largest proofs against the existence of a trinity is the fact that there are no verses which mention any conflict within the earliest church over this doctrine. The Old Testament strictly taught the oneness of Yahweh (contained in the SHEMA), which definitely was the main doctrine of the Jews. If the apostles suddenly began teaching that Jesus was God, and more so that there was a trinity, wouldn't there have been an uproar just on that change in doctrinal beliefs alone? We are told that the early church had skirmishes over things like circumcision and what foods they were allowed to eat, but there is no mention at all about arguments over whether God was one or three. It does not seem plausible, then, that the apostles introduced the doctrine of a trinity because that surely would have caused a huge amount anxiety for the converted Jews, much more than circumcision and diet.
==============
Above are many clear verses from God, Jesus, Peter and Paul. No where in all of their important writings and preachings did they ever mention a three-in-one god. The modern churches would have us to believe that the trinity is so important that they have made it their number one point in their statements of faith, yet neither the term nor the very idea are presented in the Bible. Why is this doctrine so important to the modern churches that they require new believers to adhere to it and use it as their litmus test as to whether someone is a Christian or not? Where in the Bible are new believers required to recite a statement about a three-in-one God in order to join the church? There are verses where God Yahweh plainly states that He is One and there are no other gods besides Him, yet according to the modern churches we are not supposed to believe this.
So, if we are not supposed to believe God when He tells us He is one, then how can we believe any other plain statements that are in the Bible? Why is it just that these “oneness” verses deserve ignoring? I believe that if you find someone who has never heard of the trinity, hand them the Bible and have them read it thoroughly, he or she would not come away believing that God is three beings in one. That doctrine must be taught by outside sources. Please study this topic further and pray about it. You'll find that the more you dig, the more this three-legged stool fails to stand up to honest scrutiny. God's truth sets us free.
Every time I discuss the topic of the trinity with a staunch trinitarian and I present my reasons why I do not believe in it, the response I receive relies heavily upon the argument that God is "a mystery" and that God somehow "gave up being God so that He could take on human flesh". The answers I get are riddled with strange explanations that have absolutely no Biblical support and are framed solely to prop up an unyielding belief in the trinity. These trinitarian foundational "truths" are used to support the philosophy behind the doctrine of the trinity, yet you cannot find them anywhere in the Bible. God is not the God of confusion. He says "Come, let us reason together". When you read with rose-colored glasses, everything takes on a different hue. When you approach reading the Bible with the pre-conceived belief that there is a trinity, then every verse that proves you wrong must be explained away with some sort of mysticism or flat out ignored. Let the Bible speak for itself, and you will be set free.
So who do you think Christ is? Do you think that God could not make himself man?
I won't respond to all of your scripture references, but you might want to look up the user Mike555, as he is very knowledgeable in the doctrine and has posted extensive threads proving the Tri-une God. To an uneducated(Just Biblical Context) person it is easy to see why someone would think your quoted scriptures would say otherwise.
Why did the Jews want to kill Christ? He was claiming to be God in the flesh. . .
John 8:58-59 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." Therefore they [the Jews] picked up stones to throw at Him…
"I AM" ("ego eimi") refers exclusively to Jehovah in the Old Testament and emphasizes there is only one (1) eternal God and no lesser gods. "Ego eimi" is used by Jesus to refer to Himself. The Jews understood very clearly Jesus was referring to Himself as Yahweh (Jehovah); that is why they attempted to stone Him after His "ego eimi" statement.
I believe Jesus is who He says He is....He is who the Bible prophesied about. He is the Messiah...the ANNOINTED one from God...the Son of God (not God the Son) whom God Promised to send at His chosen time. He was a man like unto Moses but He was given the Holy Spirit of God beyond measure. He lived a sinless life (to our shame). The fact that He was a man (and not some mythical God-Man) entitles Him to even more glory as He did indeed suffer from the same trials and temptations as we all do (and even more so) and yet He did not Sin. If He was God, then He would be unable to sin and this would be a mute point. But because He was human He did have the CHOICE to sin, as we all do, but He remained always pure and faithful.
Your response implies that people who read my post will be too simple to understand the verses and too uneducated to realize that they need help from some outside sources in order to understand the trinity doctrine. I believe this further proves my point that this doctrine is not Biblical. God did not choose the wise and educated...He chose the simple, and He presented a very simple Gospel message and a simple yet powerful description of Himself. But the wise of mankind cannot tolerate the simple, and so they complicate the message with added-in ancient philosophy, making it confusing.
History shows that the trinity doctrine was forced upon the early church by powerful men who introduced pagan ideas into the church...and the people who dared try to stand against them were persecuted. That does not sound like a doctrine introduced and approved of by God.
All I ask is that you let the Bible speak for itself (and allow others to read it that way too)...you'll find it has nothing to say about a three-in-one God. The Bible does not have a bibliography listing other outside resource materials that we should consult. It contains all we need for learning about God within itself.
PS...My original post speaks about the "I Am" verse, and I believe it explains it well.
I was raised Catholic, but later on in adulthood I started attending other churches. I believed the trinity just because that was what I was taught. But as I started reading the Bible on my own, my belief in the trinity became strained. I basically ended up asking myself "Do I cling to a belief even though I now know there are many verses that show it cannot be true?" After years of internal debate, I finally decided I could not, in good conscience, continue holding to the doctrine of the trinity.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This is the main verse used to support the trinity doctrine. However, that interpretation fails to acknowledge how the term "one" is used throughout the Bible. It often means people working together or acting as one, not that they are actually literally one. (Also note that many Bible versions omit this verse believing it was not original to the earliest manuscripts).
Congratulations. It looks like you've done your homework. I think this last passage and your comment on it sum it up very well. "One" does not have to be "numerically a single unit." It can and does often mean simply "united." This, I believe to be the case with respect to the members of the Godhead. Their unity is perfect. It is absolute. That does not mean that the Father and the Son are just two different manifestations of "one" substance. The Father is the Father and the Son is the Son. There have to be two individuals in order for this to be the case. I don't believe, however, that this means that the Son is not himself divine. I believe the Father and the Son to be part of a single Godhead. They share the title of "God" but are distinct from one another.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, although likely foreign to the specifics of Trinitarian theology because they were not defined until the 4th century, nevertheless affirmed Christ's deity and referenced "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.[16] Ignatius of Antioch is provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[17] exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit."[18] Justin Martyr (AD 100–ca.165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." [19] The first of the early church fathers recorded actually using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[20] in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.[21]
Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[22] or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[23][24] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.
Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers[22] in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.[25]
Sabellianism taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are aspects of how humanity has interacted with or experienced God. In the role of the Father, God is the provider and creator of all. In the role of the Son, God is manifested in the flesh as a human to bring about the salvation of mankind. In the role of the Holy Spirit, God manifests himself from heaven through his actions on the earth and within the lives of Christians. This view was rejected as heresy by the Ecumenical Councils.[which?]
[I found this one interesting because it echos what my son, who spent two years in Israel studying Torah) told me about Jewish explanations about Satan, who in the view of many, was not a real person but an "aspect" of YHWH]
Arianism, which was coming into prominence during the 4th century, taught that the Father came before the Son, and that the Son was a distinct being from the Holy Spirit. In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one being".
Saint Athanasius, who was a participant in the Council, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense.[26] Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that "hypostasis" for some meant "essence" and for others "person."Athanasius of Alexandria (293–373) helped to separate the terms.[27]
The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[28] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[29] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[28] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[28]
Basically, as I understand it, the evolution, expansion, and codification of the Doctrine of the Trinity is the result of a couple of centuries of mainstream Christian thinkers responding to various heresies which made one claim or another about the divinity and nature of Jesus. The result is what we have today.
I admire the effort you put in to come to your conclusion. Lucky for you this isnt 500 years ago, cuz you would be a candle in the wind, if you get my drift.
Well, Jesus and His followers were considered heretics by the religious leaders of that time, and I would bet that, if He appeared here again today as He did back then, most of Christianity would reject Him just as the Jews had done.
The trinity is foreign to the Bible, it was copied from pagan religions and then forced upon the early church (just a mere few hundred years after the time of the apostles...fulfilling a prophecy by Paul in Acts 20:29) by force of the Roman empire. Once Christianity came under the control of the empire/government, it was never to be the same.
And yes...I know what you mean, Chuckmann, when you say if this was 500 years ago I would be a human torch for believing what I believe. May God remember those saints who did die that terrible death. I would not rely on wikipedia for the accurate complete history on this, however. Other more reliable sources are available for this post-biblical historical time period.
The Roman Emperor Constantine wanted unity in his kingdom, and he attempted to bring unity of his people by forcing the Christian Religion (as he defined it) upon everyone of his subjects by threat of force. Not only that, but he, a Roman ruler, made the final decision to adopt the trinity doctrine as the official doctrine of the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church/empire. Again, the Apostles, Jesus and God as recorded in the Bible preach nothing of the sort.
The Shema...God is One, and there is no God beside Him...means exactly what it says. There is no "wink, wink...I mean three" transliteration. Let the Bible speak for itself. We need not complicate the messages of the Bible with human philosophy/mythology. Paul wrote that the Jews seek after signs and the gentiles seek after wisdom...and God will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I believe the real truths of God are simple and pure, free of human inventions.
I find that many trinitarians cling to their belief no matter what. It was what they grew up with, it is what most of modern "orthodox" organized Christianity teaches, so they are comfortable with it and do not wish to entertain the possibility that they may be wrong, no matter how much evidence is presented to them. They choose to have more faith in the church's doctrines than in the Bible which the church is supposedly founded upon.
My hope is that you will take a step back and consider what if the trinity doctrine is indeed false. Allow yourself that freedom to look at all the evidence and make a true judgment, and then ask yourself...."Am I willing to change my belief if God's word shows it to be wrong?" God says we must be open to correction, else we merely perpetuate worthless shackles of our own making.
Jesus had not yet become glorified by the Father God in the days before the cross of Christ , So Jesus was confessing that faith which the Father God told Him to believe ....In Isaiah 53: 12 there is a prophecy for Jesus to come , which Father God told Isaiah to keep .....``There will I divide Him [Jesus} a portion with the great, and he will divide the spoil with the strong, because he has poured out his soul on to death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors ``..... See Father God declares that Jesus will be given a portion and be great Like God as His died on the cross and rose from the dead and claimed this ...... Also when people reject the trinity they tell God and the adversary dark spirit that the number of the beast is on their life......... As the numbers of God is 3 in the trinity... were the numbers of the beast is man number for the trinity which is 666, this is wisdom for you.....
There are many references to multiple gods in the bible. Apologists who wished to maintain that the Hebrews believed in only one god, devised the trinity concept.
Quote:
Christian scholars agree with the fact the word Elohim is plural, but attempt to argue that this plurality is negated when put alongside a singular verb. But we see in Genesis 20:13, Gen 35:7, 2 Sam 7:23, and Psalms 58, this proposition is not born out in fact. In these writings the word Elohim is followed by a plural verb.
What difference does any of this make in the way you live your life?
If God was in fifty persons rather than the three in the trinity, would you change how you treat your fellow man?
And if the trinity was a false doctrine, would it affect your life in anyway?
Then, why bother fretting about what others believe?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
