Yet Another Anti-Trinity thread

[spitndirt]

Does God's threefold Personhood detract from His infinity? By saying that God is three in One, does this limit His magnificence and ability to exist in whatever "amount" of centers of conciousness He wants?

Just some question(s) I have had in my mind as of late. I hope someone can help. :help:

You have already given in to the the trinitarian assumtion.....that God is '...three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. If God is a trinity then there is no such thing as infinite. Infinite must necessarily be 'one' and 'borderless' whereas three distincts must necassarily be separated by borders in order to make three pesons distinct. This would render each person of the trinity finite in nature.

Key in on 'the Word' for a moment. Ask yourself what purpose 'Word' could possibly serve apart from the context of creation. The fact is there is no purpose for 'Word' where there is only God. His 'omni' attributes nullify that possibility. In short, the Word was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word. The Word is 'God revealed' - something else that has no purpose apart from creation. God knows Himself fully so it is for our benifit that He is manifest in 'Word' form.....specifically to put on flesh which connotes 'Sonship'. No flesh....no Son.

[Lost]

You have already given in to the the trinitarian assumtion.....that God is '...three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. If God is a trinity then there is no such thing as infinite. Infinite must necessarily be 'one' and 'borderless' whereas three distincts must necassarily be separated by borders in order to make three pesons distinct. This would render each person of the trinity finite in nature.

Key in on 'the Word' for a moment. Ask yourself what purpose 'Word' could possibly serve apart from the context of creation. The fact is there is no purpose for 'Word' where there is only God. His 'omni' attributes nullify that possibility. In short, the Word was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word. The Word is 'God revealed' - something else that has no purpose apart from creation. God knows Himself fully so it is for our benifit that He is manifest in 'Word' form.....specifically to put on flesh which connotes 'Sonship'. No flesh....no Son.

What are you saying, that the Word did not exist before creation and that it had no use before creation?
"No flesh...no Son"?

[spitndirt]

What are you saying, that the Word did not exist before creation and that it had no use before creation?
"No flesh...no Son"?

Yep....God did not exist in that form prior to creation. God is perpetually God needing not to communicate anything to God's self.....only to 'others' who are objects within creation. We need to come to know God but God fully knows Himself. He doesn't need to tell Himself things He already knows; or to tell Himself to go to where He already is; or to do what is perpetually done. God is knowledge, presence, and power in relation to creation.

And yep....flesh constitutes sonship. Both Adam #1 and Adam #2 are called 'sons of God'....one made the other begat. We are sons in a secondary sense through these. The image and likeness of God were brought forth for the expressed purpose of applying to men....and the Word for revelatory purposes. Then there are sons....not before. The blueprint is not the end of the matter and has no purpose apart from the object built according to it. The Word is for creation and creation for the Word. The two go together and lose their meaning if one or the other is missing. The pattern for this is revealed in the creation of 'the first day (Day, or Morning Star).....Day + Night = ONE day - the first day. The tree of knowledge and of life and also the heart of man were patterned after the first day of creation.

The Word IS God in that the fullness of God is completely revealed therein. The Word is WITH God in that God is still God without His Word. Get it......sort of???

[Lost]

Yep....God did not exist in that form prior to creation. God is perpetually God needing not to communicate anything to God's self.....only to 'others' who are objects within creation. We need to come to know God but God fully knows Himself. He doesn't need to tell Himself things He already knows; or to tell Himself to go to where He already is; or to do what is perpetually done. God is knowledge, presence, and power in relation to creation.

And yep....flesh constitutes sonship. Both Adam #1 and Adam #2 are called 'sons of God'....one made the other begat. We are sons in a secondary sense through these. The image and likeness of God were brought forth for the expressed purpose of applying to men....and the Word for revelatory purposes. Then there are sons....not before. The blueprint is not the end of the matter and has no purpose apart from the object built according to it. The Word is for creation and creation for the Word. The two go together and lose their meaning if one or the other is missing. The pattern for this is revealed in the creation of 'the first day (Day, or Morning Star).....Day + Night = ONE day - the first day. The tree of knowledge and of life and also the heart of man were patterned after the first day of creation.

The Word IS God in that the fullness of God is completely revealed therein. The Word is WITH God in that God is still God without His Word. Get it......sort of???


No I don't get it.
You are saying that God is not always a trinity.
Maybe sometimes there is two of him, sometimes three and maybe sometimes only one.
And who knows maybe there will be four of 'em oneday.
The old rcc would have had you for dinner.

[spitndirt]

No I don't get it.
You are saying that God is not always a trinity.
Maybe sometimes there is two of him, sometimes three and maybe sometimes only one.
And who knows maybe there will be four of 'em oneday.
The old rcc would have had you for dinner.

You could get it if you would just consider the obvious. And yes....their was a time when I would have been burned at the stake - by trinitarians, not by Christians.

God is 'one'...period. God was not a trinity then and He is not a trinity now. It's simple really. God, in order to become knowable by those he would create, translated Himself into a discernable form. This form is made manifest and is likened to light, wisdom, knowledge, presence, power, Word, love etc.. Now God was God without the manifestation and the manifestation was not brought forth for God's self. Therefore, the manifestaion can rightly be called 'with God'. The fact that this manifestation was brought forth for the expressed purpose of indwelling man (flesh) further clarifies that point. This manifestation is also God in that it is the full manifestation of who God is - God revealed in finite form for the empowerment, sustanance, and enlightenment of His created finite beings. Beings that were to be called sons and daughters. Of men only 'two' are set apart - Adam #1 from which Eve came, and Adam #2 (Jesus) from which the true Church comes (His bride).

What I am saying can be discerned from this saying: Jesus was a man - called Son of God - in whom the fulness of God (the Word) dwelt bodily. Subsequently 'we' who believe become the same. Paul said - and I say with him - '...I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in Me...(a two become one creature patterned after the original first day)'. The same Christ that said '...as I am in You (Father - true God) and you are in Me (Son of God by virtue of the indwelling Word); may they (believers) be made perfect in one...'. So tell me...are 'we' who believe God ourselves called God - or another person in the Godhead??? Well no! But we are one with the Father and the Son just as the Son is with the Father. That would render God a conglamerate of distinct persons who must have existed in eternity past since all that is God is without beginning. Yep....Father, Son, Spirit, the man Jesus (since He is God?), and each believer (since we are one as they are one). See the obvious corruption that proceeds from the trinitarian assumtion???

-God is immortal....Jesus was not. He was born mortal, He died, and was raised immortal.
-Jesus 'became' the source of salvation for those who obey Him (Heb.5).
-All power and authority was 'given' to the man Jesus (who is now raised immortal) and He will give the kingdom back to the Father (the one true God) when all is said and done.
-etc...etc...

If Jesus were God in the way trinitarians say none of the above could be said of Him. Just an obvious fact. If you say that I am not Christian by virtue of my rejecting the trinitarian fallacy you say at the same time that trinitarians are Christian by virtue of their assent to trinitarian dogma (what dogs produce when they grunt). At that point the trinitarian adds a standard to 'the faith' that was not present in the beginning. But you will likely deny this obvious fact as well. Ummm....good luck with that :smile:

peace

[Lost]

You could get it if you would just consider the obvious. And yes....their was a time when I would have been burned at the stake - by trinitarians, not by Christians.

God is 'one'...period. God was not a trinity then and He is not a trinity now. It's simple really. God, in order to become knowable by those he would create, translated Himself into a discernable form. This form is made manifest and is likened to light, wisdom, knowledge, presence, power, Word, love etc.. Now God was God without the manifestation and the manifestation was not brought forth for God's self. Therefore, the manifestaion can rightly be called 'with God'. The fact that this manifestation was brought forth for the expressed purpose of indwelling man (flesh) further clarifies that point. This manifestation is also God in that it is the full manifestation of who God is - God revealed in finite form for the empowerment, sustanance, and enlightenment of His created finite beings. Beings that were to be called sons and daughters. Of men only 'two' are set apart - Adam #1 from which Eve came, and Adam #2 (Jesus) from which the true Church comes (His bride).

What I am saying can be discerned from this saying: Jesus was a man - called Son of God - in whom the fulness of God (the Word) dwelt bodily. Subsequently 'we' who believe become the same. Paul said - and I say with him - '...I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in Me...(a two become one creature patterned after the original first day)'. The same Christ that said '...as I am in You (Father - true God) and you are in Me (Son of God by virtue of the indwelling Word); may they (believers) be made perfect in one...'. So tell me...are 'we' who believe God ourselves called God - or another person in the Godhead??? Well no! But we are one with the Father and the Son just as the Son is with the Father. That would render God a conglamerate of distinct persons who must have existed in eternity past since all that is God is without beginning. Yep....Father, Son, Spirit, the man Jesus (since He is God?), and each believer (since we are one as they are one). See the obvious corruption that proceeds from the trinitarian assumtion???

-God is immortal....Jesus was not. He was born mortal, He died, and was raised immortal.
-Jesus 'became' the source of salvation for those who obey Him (Heb.5).
-All power and authority was 'given' to the man Jesus (who is now raised immortal) and He will give the kingdom back to the Father (the one true God) when all is said and done.
-etc...etc...

If Jesus were God in the way trinitarians say none of the above could be said of Him. Just an obvious fact. If you say that I am not Christian by virtue of my rejecting the trinitarian fallacy you say at the same time that trinitarians are Christian by virtue of their assent to trinitarian dogma (what dogs produce when they grunt). At that point the trinitarian adds a standard to 'the faith' that was not present in the beginning. But you will likely deny this obvious fact as well. Ummm....good luck with that :smile:

peace


hmm I've been kicked out of these forums for saying the same.
I repented and went back to the nicene creeds.
You will be kicked out too if they don't have double standards.
They have their ways and methods of keeping the flock controllable just like the rcc did.
You would be best to at least pretend you like the trinity thingy.
Pretence is what people do best.

[RanRan]

At that point the trinitarian adds a standard to 'the faith' that was not present in the beginning. But you will likely deny this obvious fact as well. Ummm....good luck with that

Nonsense, all the early church fathers (taught by the apostles) were trinitarians. You can't rewrite history. You are non-apostolic and going your own way - that's the best you can say. Whether people want to join you in left-field is up to them - but don't lie to them.

[Littlejoe9763]

Such a broad brush you are painting with...:smile: I'm not so sure. The arians got their idea from somewhere. Caused quite a split in the church!!!

[spitndirt]

Nonsense, all the early church fathers (taught by the apostles) were trinitarians. You can't rewrite history. You are non-apostolic and going your own way - that's the best you can say. Whether people want to join you in left-field is up to them - but don't lie to them.

RanRan,

Quote me a scripture from ANYWHERE in scripture that states '...three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. It's simply NOT there!!! The apostles didn't teach any such thing. Theologians from a much later time period DEDUCED the trinitarian concept....and went further and demanded assent with threat of condemnation for denying their false deduction. The doctrine of the trinity is useless and unnecessary only causing strife and contention. Sorry Ran...the doctrine of the trinity has the appearance of knowledge but nothing good has ever come from it. And it does change the standard of faith in that it diverts attention towards assent to doctrinal theology and away from obeying the commands of our Lord.....and nowhere has our Lord commanded '...assent to the blarney of self proclaimed authorities of scripture...'. All that counts is '...faith expressing itself in love...'. To go beyond this is pure vanity.

WORD