The Trinity?

[Brother Chad]

We must remember that God is omnipresent. Jesus is God manifested in flesh while on earth. He could not and did not sacrifice His omnipresence while on earth because that is one of God

[Brother Chad]

Have you done any type of study on the nature of Jesus? Who He really was? From what you just said you haven't and you obviously didn't read what I wrote. Have a great day!

Actually, I did read some of it, but its totally erroneous.

It is not man who authored the terms "Father" and "Son" and "Holy Spirit", but God.

Remember, Jesus referred to the Father as "My Father in Heaven". Hence "Father" is not a man-made term for God.

Recall also the voice from heaven which said, "This is my (Beloved) Son..." So the Father used the terminology "Son".

Read the opening statements of Peter's epistles, and as well James.

How can you deny the fact that the Father and the Son are two seperate persons? And that the Holy Spirit is a third person? To read these passages any other way is just absurdity.

Paul's letters are teh same way. Over and over he uses terminology which makes a distinction between the person of Christ, and the person of the Father. The person of the Son and the person of the Father.

Why is there an "and" in these passages if there is only one person being spoken of?

If you were right, they should all read.

God our Father the Lord Jesus Christ...

but actually they all read.

"God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ"

and in some cases the two persons are even seperated by a preposition.

"FROM God our Father AND FROM the Lord Jesus Christ" etc.

I never said that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are man-made terms. They do not however support a claim of a triune God. I have already spoken of the voice from heaven and why it came into being. See the answer above for further clarification. Now we get into another arena with the Greetings of the Epistles:

As you have stated most of them contain God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Why if it is a trinity, is there no mention of the Holy Ghost in these greetings? Surely a co-equal partner in the fold would not be left out. Are you sure you are not binitarian? To me this would have to relegate the Holy Ghost to a junior role in the trinity?

To me, these two roles are emphasized and they show the importance of accepting Him in both roles. Not only must we believe in God as our Creator and Father, but we must accept Him as manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ. It was unnecessary to mention the Holy Ghost because the concept of God as a Spirit was wrapped up in the title of God the Father, especially to the Jewish mind. Remember the doctrine of the trinity did not develop until much later in church history.

[Brother Chad]

Let's take a look at the trinitarian doctrine from its conception:

Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal. He held that the distinction of persons would cease in the future. He was the 1st person in history to use the words trinity, substance, and person in relation to God. He was the first to speak of three persons in one substance. Tertullian equated the Logos with the Son. He believed the Father brought the Logos into existence for the creation of the world and the Logos was subordinate to the Father. By his own admission the majority of believers in his day rejected his doctrine on two premises: Their Rule of Faith prohibited polytheism, and his doctrine divided the unity of God. It is clear that in Tertullian's day Oneness believers saw his doctrine as sharply opposed to their own, which was the majority belief at the time. Tertullian was eventually excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanist's.

Origen was Trinitarianism first major proponent in the East. He attempted to fuse Greek philosophy and Christianity into a system of higher knowledge that historians describe as Christian Gnosticism. He taught that the Son or Logos was a separate person from all eternity. He said the Son was begotten from all eternity and is eternally being begotten. He retained a subordination of the Son to the Father in existence or origin, but moved closer to the later doctrine of co-equality. Origen also denied the necessity for the redemptive work of Christ, and believed in the ultimate salvation of the wicked, including the devil. He was excommunicated from the church.

Novatian was one of the first to emphasize the Holy Spirit as a third person. He also taught subordination of the Son to the Father, saying the Son was a separate person, but had a beginning and came from the Father. Cornelius excommunicated Novatian for believing that a number of serious sins could not be forgiven if committed after conversion.

All these men who started the trinity doctrine in its infancy were eventually excommunicated. Even if it wasn't for this teaching, their ideas about God had to be somewhat lacking in understanding so maybe their lack of knowledge helped them come up with a trinity?

[Brother Chad]

How about the obvious ties trinitarianism has to the pagan religions of its days.

The Babylonians worshipped one god in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity.

Trinities exist in other pagan religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

Hinduism has a trinity that is represented by a statue of one god with three heads.

Buddhists worship three-headed statues of Buddha.

Taoism has an official trinity of supreme gods- the Jade Emperor, Lao Tzu, and Ling Pao- called the three purities.

The idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom. It was a significant feature of pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era, and its existence today in various forms suggests an ancient, pagan origin.

[Brother Chad]

How about the obvious ties trinitarianism has to the pagan religions of its days.

The Babylonians worshipped one god in three persons and used the equilateral triangle as a symbol of this trinity.

Trinities exist in other pagan religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

Hinduism has a trinity that is represented by a statue of one god with three heads.

Buddhists worship three-headed statues of Buddha.

Taoism has an official trinity of supreme gods- the Jade Emperor, Lao Tzu, and Ling Pao- called the three purities.

The idea of a trinity did not originate with Christendom. It was a significant feature of pagan religions and philosophies before the Christian era, and its existence today in various forms suggests an ancient, pagan origin.

This argument does not hold water. by the same reasoning, all of the Bible is based on paganism, because the Epic of Gilagamesh, and its account of a great flood, was written down long before the Bible was written down by man.

Since the Fall, Satan has always had counterfiets. Both before and after Jesus there were false christs. Both before and after the Ten Commandments, there were false gods. Did you know that the Pre-Exodus Egyptians even had "arks" which they carried certain of their gods around in, just like the Ark of the Covenant?

Your example does not undermine the Trinity, but in fact is just an illustration of Satan's attempts to sow confusion throughout the ages by offering "other religions" that have vague similarities to certain Biblical events or concepts.

I was just trying to show the similarities between the trinitarian doctrine and those of pagan religions which God vehemently opposed by saying such things as, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Or Deuteronomy 32:39, when God said there is no other god with him. It was just to prove that God never meant for our understanding of His true nature to be that of those religions which had more than one God. Trinitarianism leads to tritheism no matter how you slice it.

[Brother Chad]

Dear John,

The only distinction I have shown between the Father and the Son is that the Father is Spirit and the Son is flesh. This is the key to unlocking the door. You really seem to like that egg thing and the husband and wife theory but notice I didn't need anything to show my points other than the Bible itself.

There is a distinction between the Father and the Son. Your way is by making the Son subordinate to the Father in the Godhead. My way is by saying that the Son (humanity) is subordinate to the Father (Spirit of God). When you see this truth for what it is you will see what the Scriptures are trying to tell you.

I understand that it is hard to believe that what you believe could be wrong. We all think we are right. I truly have come to this conclusion without any prior knowledge of what the trinity or the oneness actually meant. The Bible was written by very strict monotheistic Jews who saw nothing wrong with there being one God. They never use the word persons or hold God to the number three because to do so would demean who He is. Jesus said it best when HE said, "I Am", not "We are".

[EricH]

Dear John,

The only distinction I have shown between the Father and the Son is that the Father is Spirit and the Son is flesh. This is the key to unlocking the door. You really seem to like that egg thing and the husband and wife theory but notice I didn't need anything to show my points other than the Bible itself.

There is a distinction between the Father and the Son. Your way is by making the Son subordinate to the Father in the Godhead. My way is by saying that the Son (humanity) is subordinate to the Father (Spirit of God). When you see this truth for what it is you will see what the Scriptures are trying to tell you.

I understand that it is hard to believe that what you believe could be wrong. We all think we are right. I truly have come to this conclusion without any prior knowledge of what the trinity or the oneness actually meant. The Bible was written by very strict monotheistic Jews who saw nothing wrong with there being one God. They never use the word persons or hold God to the number three because to do so would demean who He is. Jesus said it best when HE said, "I Am", not "We are".

Actually there are other distinctions in scripture. The Father sent the Son into the world. The Son sent the Spirit. The Son suffered on the cross, not the Father. The Father turned His back on the Son when he took the punishment for sin upon Himself. The son now sits at the right hand of the Father

[Brother Chad]

Bro. Eric,

I agree there are other instances where distinctions arise. However, all the examples you have shown are what I have been trying to get across. I will try to further explain these again for you:

The Father sent the Son into the world. Galatians 4:4 says,

[Brother Chad]

Brother EricH,

The Son sent the Spirit. Well, this is true. Acts 2:4 says,

[Brother Chad]

Brother ErichH,

The Son suffered on the cross, not the Father. Once again this is very true. Matthew 27:46,