₦airaland Forum

solite3:
The biblical evidence points to Jesus as being the Son of God who is God incarnated.
The Son of a lion is a lion
The Son of man is a man
The Son of Almighty God is Almighty God.

See analogy.



Is the Son of the same age with the Father?

solite3:
yap, you got any problem with that?

Pure Pagan doctrine by the usual suspects.

I bet you do not know the origin of trinity doctrine you are only following what your church indoctrinated into you like a sheepie.

solite3:
Your questions have been answered in the trinity.
The son, the Holy Spirit and the father are one God but different persons.

In all honesty, this doesn't answer anything. How are they one despite the father being a different person than the son?
We know its what the bible says. "How so?"

blueAgent:
Pure Pagan doctrine by the usual suspects.

I bet you do not know the origin of trinity doctrine you are only following what your church indoctrinated into you like a sheepie.

There is false trinity because satan tries to imitate God but in reality God is the only trinue being.

Blabbermouth:
In all honesty, this doesn't answer anything. How are they one despite the father being a different person than the son?
We know its what the bible says. "How so?"

you are asking me how God is God? I don know that is his nature, that is who he is. He is trinity of persons.

solite3:
There is false trinity because satan tries to imitate God but in reality God is the only trinue being.

Probably the most widely held Christian
view of God is the Trinity doctrine which
has its origins in the Church of Rome
and the council of Nicea. This belief
teaches that the Father is God, the Son
is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and yet
there are not three gods but one God.
But the question remains: Is this view
found in Scripture?
The most commonly accessed
Encyclopedia on the Internet is
Wikipedia . So a “ consensus of Modern
exegetes ” tell us that both the Old and
New Testaments do not explicitly
contain the doctrine of the trinity. It
came into Christendom from another
source outside of Scripture. The
Encyclopedia Britannica basically says
the same thing as the Wikipedia. Both
tell us that the idea of the trinity came
after Scripture and from sources outside
of Scripture. The Oxford Companion to
the Bible says it “ cannot be clearly
detected within the confines of the
canon”? Is that a nice way of saying that
the Bible does not teach the doctrine of
trinity? The Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia and the Encarta
Encyclopedia says the doctrine of the
trinity is not explicitly taught in the New
Testament. Can we base our faith purely
on inference alone? If it is a fundamental
doctrine in Christianity, it should surely
have enough evidence to have become a
doctrine! Another two from Encyclopedia
of Religion and the New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology . If
the Bible does not teach this doctrine
then where did it come from? And last
the International Standard Bible
Dictionary . I will leave the reader to
define the word “allusion.”
Getting to the source of the trinity
doctrine. Let's go to the authority which
states that it is the source of the idea
being the Roman Catholic Church and
see if their definition has any Biblical
basis. This Roman Catholic source is
clear as to the origin of the trinity
doctrine. Scripture does not present the
idea of the trinity doctrine. It came after
the canon of Scripture was closed and
was developed in the 4th and 5th
centuries. The New Catholic
Encyclopedia puts it this way. So do we
have one God in three parts, or three
gods in one?

blueAgent:
Probably the most widely held Christian
view of God is the Trinity doctrine which
has its origins in the Church of Rome
and the council of Nicea. This belief
teaches that the Father is God, the Son
is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and yet
there are not three gods but one God.
But the question remains: Is this view
found in Scripture?
The most commonly accessed
Encyclopedia on the Internet is
Wikipedia . So a “ consensus of Modern
exegetes ” tell us that both the Old and
New Testaments do not explicitly
contain the doctrine of the trinity. It
came into Christendom from another
source outside of Scripture. The
Encyclopedia Britannica basically says
the same thing as the Wikipedia. Both
tell us that the idea of the trinity came
after Scripture and from sources outside
of Scripture. The Oxford Companion to
the Bible says it “ cannot be clearly
detected within the confines of the
canon”? Is that a nice way of saying that
the Bible does not teach the doctrine of
trinity? The Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia and the Encarta
Encyclopedia says the doctrine of the
trinity is not explicitly taught in the New
Testament. Can we base our faith purely
on inference alone? If it is a fundamental
doctrine in Christianity, it should surely
have enough evidence to have become a
doctrine! Another two from Encyclopedia
of Religion and the New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology . If
the Bible does not teach this doctrine
then where did it come from? And last
the International Standard Bible
Dictionary . I will leave the reader to
define the word “allusion.”
Getting to the source of the trinity
doctrine. Let's go to the authority which
states that it is the source of the idea
being the Roman Catholic Church and
see if their definition has any Biblical
basis. This Roman Catholic source is
clear as to the origin of the trinity
doctrine. Scripture does not present the
idea of the trinity doctrine. It came after
the canon of Scripture was closed and
was developed in the 4th and 5th
centuries. The New Catholic
Encyclopedia puts it this way. So do we
have one God in three parts, or three
gods in one?

Is it the name or the teaching that matters?
The bible presents to us God.
A God who is defined in the person a Father, in the person of a Son sent by the father and in the person of the Holy Spirit sent by both the Father and The Son, and that is what trinity is.

Trinity is not some ambiguous/ mysterious term.
Feel free to disprove it biblically.

Blabbermouth:
In all honesty, this doesn't answer anything. How are they one despite the father being a different person than the son?
We know its what the bible says. "How so?"

The Trinity delusion twists "Father and I are one" to falsely claim they are one being.
Let the Bible expose the scam....
John17:20-23 ,Jesus prayed his disciples "be one just as he and his Father are one.
Also his disciples " be one with us" (the Father and Jesus Christ).
Going by Trinitarians delusion, Jesus Christ is saying his disciples are in the Trinity...
Omo you dey see am, na there the delusion fall yakata....
John10:30, Jesus Christ is NOT saying he and Father is one Being/One God.
(i)
Else, 1Cor6:16 should mean that man and harlot is One being, (or verse17) that the believer is one being with the lord .
ii)
( Or Mark19:5,6) the man and wife is One Being.
(iii)
Or Romans 16:5) "one voice" should be we are one being glorifying the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

In (I), (ii) & (iii) 'one' means agreement, harmony.
"Can two ( a man with a woman) walk together (in marriage ) unless they agree?" Amos 3:3.
If I say, "we are one", I'm not saying nor implying that we are one being, I simply mean we are in agreement.
That's what Jesus Christ was saying in John10:30. further amplified in John15:15, john12:49,50.
Shalom.

solite3:
Is it the name or the teaching that matters?
The bible presents to us God.
A God who is defined in the person a Father, in the person of a Son sent by the father and in the person of the Holy Spirit sent by both the Father and The Son, and that is what trinity is.

Trinity is not some ambiguous/ mysterious term.
Feel free to disprove it biblically.

You are on your own, because the people who documented the history of the Church acknowledged that trinity doctrine was introduced by the Usual suspects the Catholic Church and that it has no proof in the Bible.

solite3:
Is it the name or the teaching that matters?
The bible presents to us God.
A God who is defined in the person a Father, in the person of a Son sent by the father and in the person of the Holy Spirit sent by both the Father and The Son, and that is what trinity is.

Trinity is not some ambiguous/ mysterious term.
Feel free to disprove it biblically.

The Holyspirit is not a person as Paul didn't include it in his greetings E.g

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.


2 Corinthians 1:2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: 1:2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

solite3:
There is false trinity because satan tries to imitate God but in reality God is the only trinue being.

There is nothing like false trinity all form or teachings of trinity doctrine are false and are of pagan origin.

God is not a trinity and never told or instructed us that he was.

blueAgent:
Probably the most widely held Christian
view of God is the Trinity doctrine which
has its origins in the Church of Rome
and the council of Nicea. This belief
teaches that the Father is God, the Son
is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and yet
there are not three gods but one God.
But the question remains: Is this view
found in Scripture?
The most commonly accessed
Encyclopedia on the Internet is
Wikipedia . So a “ consensus of Modern
exegetes ” tell us that both the Old and
New Testaments do not explicitly
contain the doctrine of the trinity. It
came into Christendom from another
source outside of Scripture. The
Encyclopedia Britannica basically says
the same thing as the Wikipedia. Both
tell us that the idea of the trinity came
after Scripture and from sources outside
of Scripture. The Oxford Companion to
the Bible says it “ cannot be clearly
detected within the confines of the
canon”? Is that a nice way of saying that
the Bible does not teach the doctrine of
trinity? The Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia and the Encarta
Encyclopedia says the doctrine of the
trinity is not explicitly taught in the New
Testament. Can we base our faith purely
on inference alone? If it is a fundamental
doctrine in Christianity, it should surely
have enough evidence to have become a
doctrine! Another two from Encyclopedia
of Religion and the New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology . If
the Bible does not teach this doctrine
then where did it come from? And last
the International Standard Bible
Dictionary . I will leave the reader to
define the word “allusion.”
Getting to the source of the trinity
doctrine. Let's go to the authority which
states that it is the source of the idea
being the Roman Catholic Church and
see if their definition has any Biblical
basis. This Roman Catholic source is
clear as to the origin of the trinity
doctrine. Scripture does not present the
idea of the trinity doctrine. It came after
the canon of Scripture was closed and
was developed in the 4th and 5th
centuries. The New Catholic
Encyclopedia puts it this way. So do we
have one God in three parts, or three
gods in one?

Great post. I believe, just like the earliest authorities of the doctrine of Trinity, the author of this thread (solite3) is struggling so hard to infuse coherency into one of the most confounding teachings in Christendom. God is a god of reason, not incoherence. Admittedly, His word might be difficult to understand; but upon revelation, they actually become simple and logical. The harder Trinitarians try to explain the doctrine of three persons in one God(head), the more confused they sound!

From the original post, something was already missing. The writer failed to establish what exactly he was going ahead to defend. That leaves room for a lot of people to conflate issues, which I believe is not the intention. If I say for example, "I am a man", I might mean that I am a human being or that I am a human born with a penis. So in trying to establish my point, as common as the word may seem, I have to define exactly what I mean by my statement.

As we might all agree, though there are verses that seem to support the idea of Trinity in the Bible, the doctrine is not Biblical. Anyone can pick a couple of scriptures in the Bible and spin up a new doctrine; even the Devil quotes scripture.

Let us go back to one of the earliest authorities of Trinity - The Athanasian Creed. Although there are some disputations about its sources, it came into popular use in Christendom sometime in the sixteenth century. The Creed says, in excerpts;

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith...

"And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God...

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity...

"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

This is a whole lot to swallow. But at least, we have established a reference point upon which we can now discourse.

In trying to establish a clear Biblical authority for the doctrine of Trinity, even the translators of the popular King James Version of the Bible committed a serious gaffe by attempting the same eisegesis as the author(solite3) here. Let us examine three different translations of 1 John 5:7, 8 -

(KJV) [7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

(NIV) [7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

(NLT) [7] So we have these three witnesses [8] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree.

You can easily see the serious and deliberate error made in the KJV, all in an attempt to give authority to a strange and very questionable doctrine. This is one evidence to the perceiving and unbiased mind that the doctrine of Trinity is only an attempt by the Devil to confuse people about the true nature of God.

Jesus Christ, in John 17:3, teaches that it is essential for one to have a knowledge of the true God and he, the Son who was sent to this world. Here, there is no mention of a third person, the Holy Spirit. Again, in John 1:1, 14, Christ makes his disciples understand that he was with God from the very beginning of creation. In 5:26, Jesus highlighted the fact that he received life from the Father, who is the original source of life. Jesus is created by God, hence is the first and the beginning of God's creatures, by which all other things were created - (John 1:2,3; Colossians 1:15-17; Proverbs 8:30; Revelation 3:14; etc). Therefore, Jesus Christ was the other character God was referring to in Genesis 1:26, when He said; "Let US make man in OUR image..."

Due to the many similarities between the Father and the Son, (as we often have in our much less perfect human system), they also share a lot of names and titles. But the name YHWH (or YAHWEH, JHVH, JEHOVAH) is one that distinguishes the personality of the Father from any other. This was the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 6:2, 3.

Some relevant scriptural references that establish the supremacy of JEHOVAH over Jesus Christ and every other being include; Isaiah 40:18, 25; Proverbs 8: 22-30; Mark 10:18; John 5:30; 10:29; 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Timothy 1:17. A careful study of these texts will make us understand that not only does Christ acknowledge the supremacy of JEHOVAH God, but that he, Christ has always been subject to His Father - before, during and after his human existence.

From the above, it is clear that the claim of Trinity that the Son is uncreated is false: The Son derived life from the Father. It is also clear that omnipotence can only be attributed to the Father and not the Son, making the Father greater than the Son. It is why even though the Bible refers to Jesus christ the Son as "Mighty God"(Isaiah 9:6) and "Almighty"(Revelation 1:, only JEHOVAH is referred to as "Almighty God" or "God Almighty"(Genesis 17:1; Exodus 6:3). So although Jesus Christ possesses a form of "almightiness", being that everything was created by him and for him, hence is also referred to as Adonai, Elohim, King of kings and Lord of lords; his authority is not absolute as it excludes the very person who is responsible for his life and to whom he is subject - his Father JEHOVAH.

Moving on, let us talk about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a person. Some relevant pointers to this point are - there is no account of its creation; it does not have a name; it has never acted independently as a person; and it has never appeared as a person. Allow me to elaborate:

- The Bible tells us that the Father is uncreated, the Son is the first creature of the Father, but does not mention the nature of the creation of the Holy Spirit

- The appellation Holy Spirit simply means Spirit of the Holy One. The Holy Spirit is also called the Comforter. These are not personalized names. The Father is called JEHOVAH (meaning Self-existing One); the Son - Jesus Christ (meaning JEHOVAH will save His people through His anointed) or Logos (the Word and Purpose of God); but there is no name for the Holy Spirit.

- There are several records in the Bible of the Father acting as an independent being. Jesus the Son also acted as an independent, free thinking individual who by obedience and humility, acts in complete accordance to the dictates of his Father. The Bible does not suggest same for the Holy Spirit or give an instance of the Spirit declaring that "he" willingly chooses to always do the bidding of God the Father.

- Centuries before the earthly advent of Christ, God had prophesied that He would send a saviour to His people. When this saviour came, he came in the appearance of a human, just like you and I today. But when the Spirit, which Christ had promised his disciples before his ascension, came, it never appeared as a person or lived like a human being like Christ did with mankind for over 30 years. Rather the Spirit appeared as tongues of fire on the heads of the apostles. In fact, of all the records of encounters of the Holy Spirit, both from the Old and New Testaments, not once did it appear as a person. Even angels of God have appeared to humans and spoke in intelligible language to men and women of old. But not the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, the Holy Spirit cannot be a person. This is another falsehood of Trinity. For the fact that a lie cannot stand on its own, you will need to create a web of lies to give it as much credibility as possible. That is why I am taking my time to point out the inconsistencies in the doctrine of Trinity. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, what then is it?

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's being, an intelligence or force inherent in the very nature of God, which He shares with whoever He chooses to do His bidding. Only one individual is privileged to have received this Spirit from its very source "without measure" (John 3:34), that is Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of JEHOVAH God. All others can only access the Holy Spirit in measured quantities, right down from the Apostles to anyone who is willing to be used by it. A most apt description of the Holy Spirit is given by St. Paul when he said, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7.

We might not be able to understand entirely the nature of God and His purpose for man, (we do not even have the capacity to); but a true, clear and basic knowledge of His person and that of His Son, our Redeemer Christ is essential for our salvation. (John 17:3)

[quote author=okosunehis post=83266622]Great post. I believe, just like the earliest authorities of the doctrine of Trinity, the author of this thread (solite3) is struggling so hard to infuse coherency into one of the most confounding teachings in Christendom. God is a god of reason, not incoherence. Admittedly, His word might be difficult to understand; but upon revelation, they actually become simple and logical. The harder Trinitarians try to explain the doctrine of three persons in one God(head), the more confused they sound!

From the original post, something was already missing. The writer failed to establish what exactly he was going ahead to defend. That leaves room for a lot of people to conflate issues, which I believe is not the intention. If I say for example, "I am a man", I might mean that I am a human being or that I am a human born with a penis. So in trying to establish my point, as common as the word may seem, I have to define exactly what I mean by my statement.

As we might all agree, though there are verses that seem to support the idea of Trinity in the Bible, the doctrine is not Biblical. Anyone can pick a couple of scriptures in the Bible and spin up a new doctrine; even the Devil quotes scripture.

Let us go back to one of the earliest authorities of Trinity - The Athanasian Creed. Although there are some disputations about its sources, it came into popular use in Christendom sometime in the sixteenth century. The Creed says, in excerpts;

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith...

"And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God...

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity...

"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

This is a whole lot to swallow. But at least, we have established a reference point upon which we can now discourse.

In trying to establish a clear Biblical authority for the doctrine of Trinity, even the translators of the popular King James Version of the Bible committed a serious gaffe by attempting the same eisegesis as the author(solite3) here. Let us examine three different translations of 1 John 5:7, 8 -

(KJV) [7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

(NIV) [7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

(NLT) [7] So we have these three witnesses [8] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree.

You can easily see the serious and deliberate error made in the KJV, all in an attempt to give authority to a strange and very questionable doctrine. This is one evidence to the perceiving and unbiased mind that the doctrine of Trinity is only an attempt by the Devil to confuse people about the true nature of God.

Jesus Christ, in John 17:3, teaches that it is essential for one to have a knowledge of the true God and he, the Son who was sent to this world. Here, there is no mention of a third person, the Holy Spirit. Again, in John 1:1, 14, Christ makes his disciples understand that he was with God from the very beginning of creation. In 5:26, Jesus highlighted the fact that he received life from the Father, who is the original source of life. Jesus is created by God, hence is the first and the beginning of God's creatures, by which all other things were created - (John 1:2,3; Colossians 1:15-17; Proverbs 8:30; Revelation 3:14; etc). Therefore, Jesus Christ was the other character God was referring to in Genesis 1:26, when He said; "Let US make man in OUR image..."

Due to the many similarities between the Father and the Son, (as we often have in our much less perfect human system), they also share a lot of names and titles. But the name YHWH (or YAHWEH, JHVH, JEHOVAH) is one that distinguishes the personality of the Father from any other. This was the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 6:2, 3.

Some relevant scriptural references that establish the supremacy of JEHOVAH over Jesus Christ and every other being include; Isaiah 40:18, 25; Proverbs 8: 22-30; Mark 10:18; John 5:30; 10:29; 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Timothy 1:17. A careful study of these texts will make us understand that not only does Christ acknowledge the supremacy of JEHOVAH God, but that he, Christ has always been subject to His Father - before, during and after his human existence.

From the above, it is clear that the claim of Trinity that the Son is uncreated is false: The Son derived life from the Father. It is also clear that omnipotence can only be attributed to the Father and not the Son, making the Father greater than the Son. It is why even though the Bible refers to Jesus christ the Son as "Mighty God"(Isaiah 9:6) and "Almighty"(Revelation 1:, only JEHOVAH is referred to as "Almighty God" or "God Almighty"(Genesis 17:1; Exodus 6:3). So although Jesus Christ possesses a form of "almightiness", being that everything was created by him and for him, hence is also referred to as Adonai, Elohim, King of kings and Lord of lords; his authority is not absolute as it excludes the very person who is responsible for his life and to whom he is subject - his Father JEHOVAH.

Moving on, let us talk about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a person. Some relevant pointers to this point are - there is no account of its creation; it does not have a name; it has never acted independently as a person; and it has never appeared as a person. Allow me to elaborate:

- The Bible tells us that the Father is uncreated, the Son is the first creature of the Father, but does not mention the nature of the creation of the Holy Spirit

- The appellation Holy Spirit simply means Spirit of the Holy One. The Holy Spirit is also called the Comforter. These are not personalized names. The Father is called JEHOVAH (meaning Self-existing One); the Son - Jesus Christ (meaning JEHOVAH will save His people through His anointed) or Logos (the Word and Purpose of God); but there is no name for the Holy Spirit.

- There are several records in the Bible of the Father acting as an independent being. Jesus the Son also acted as an independent, free thinking individual who by obedience and humility, acts in complete accordance to the dictates of his Father. The Bible does not suggest same for the Holy Spirit or give an instance of the Spirit declaring that "he" willingly chooses to always do the bidding of God the Father.

- Centuries before the earthly advent of Christ, God had prophesied that He would send a saviour to His people. When this saviour came, he came in the appearance of a human, just like you and I today. But when the Spirit, which Christ had promised his disciples before his ascension, came, it never appeared as a person or lived like a human being like Christ did with mankind for over 30 years. Rather the Spirit appeared as tongues of fire on the heads of the apostles. In fact, of all the records of encounters of the Holy Spirit, both from the Old and New Testaments, not once did it appear as a person. Even angels of God have appeared to humans and spoke in intelligible language to men and women of old. But not the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, the Holy Spirit cannot be a person. This is another falsehood of Trinity. For the fact that a lie cannot stand on its own, you will need to create a web of lies to give it as much credibility as possible. That is why I am taking my time to point out the inconsistencies in the doctrine of Trinity. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, what then is it?

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's being, an intelligence or force inherent in the very nature of God, which He shares with whoever He chooses to do His bidding. Only one individual is privileged to have received this Spirit from its very source "without measure" (John 3:34), that is Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of JEHOVAH God. All others can only access the Holy Spirit in measured quantities, right down from the Apostles to anyone who is willing to be used by it. A most apt description of the Holy Spirit is given by St. Paul when he said, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7.

We might not be able to understand entirely the nature of God and His purpose for man, (we do not even have the capacity to); but a true, clear and basic knowledge of His person and that of His Son, our Redeemer Christ is essential for our salvation. (John 17:3)[/qu



I can barely disagree with you.


My only argument is that Jesus was not created by God but was born or Begotten by God.

okosunehis:
Great post. I believe, just like the earliest authorities of the doctrine of Trinity, the author of this thread (solite3) is struggling so hard to infuse coherency into one of the most confounding teachings in Christendom. God is a god of reason, not incoherence. Admittedly, His word might be difficult to understand; but upon revelation, they actually become simple and logical. The harder Trinitarians try to explain the doctrine of three persons in one God(head), the more confused they sound!

From the original post, something was already missing. The writer failed to establish what exactly he was going ahead to defend. That leaves room for a lot of people to conflate issues, which I believe is not the intention. If I say for example, "I am a man", I might mean that I am a human being or that I am a human born with a penis. So in trying to establish my point, as common as the word may seem, I have to define exactly what I mean by my statement.

As we might all agree, though there are verses that seem to support the idea of Trinity in the Bible, the doctrine is not Biblical. Anyone can pick a couple of scriptures in the Bible and spin up a new doctrine; even the Devil quotes scripture.

Let us go back to one of the earliest authorities of Trinity - The Athanasian Creed. Although there are some disputations about its sources, it came into popular use in Christendom sometime in the sixteenth century. The Creed says, in excerpts;

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith...

"And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God...

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity...

"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

This is a whole lot to swallow. But at least, we have established a reference point upon which we can now discourse.

In trying to establish a clear Biblical authority for the doctrine of Trinity, even the translators of the popular King James Version of the Bible committed a serious gaffe by attempting the same eisegesis as the author(solite3) here. Let us examine three different translations of 1 John 5:7, 8 -

(KJV) [7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

(NIV) [7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

(NLT) [7] So we have these three witnesses [8] the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree.

You can easily see the serious and deliberate error made in the KJV, all in an attempt to give authority to a strange and very questionable doctrine. This is one evidence to the perceiving and unbiased mind that the doctrine of Trinity is only an attempt by the Devil to confuse people about the true nature of God.

Jesus Christ, in John 17:3, teaches that it is essential for one to have a knowledge of the true God and he, the Son who was sent to this world. Here, there is no mention of a third person, the Holy Spirit. Again, in John 1:1, 14, Christ makes his disciples understand that he was with God from the very beginning of creation. In 5:26, Jesus highlighted the fact that he received life from the Father, who is the original source of life. Jesus is created by God, hence is the first and the beginning of God's creatures, by which all other things were created - (John 1:2,3; Colossians 1:15-17; Proverbs 8:30; Revelation 3:14; etc). Therefore, Jesus Christ was the other character God was referring to in Genesis 1:26, when He said; "Let US make man in OUR image..."

Due to the many similarities between the Father and the Son, (as we often have in our much less perfect human system), they also share a lot of names and titles. But the name YHWH (or YAHWEH, JHVH, JEHOVAH) is one that distinguishes the personality of the Father from any other. This was the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 6:2, 3.

Some relevant scriptural references that establish the supremacy of JEHOVAH over Jesus Christ and every other being include; Isaiah 40:18, 25; Proverbs 8: 22-30; Mark 10:18; John 5:30; 10:29; 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Timothy 1:17. A careful study of these texts will make us understand that not only does Christ acknowledge the supremacy of JEHOVAH God, but that he, Christ has always been subject to His Father - before, during and after his human existence.

From the above, it is clear that the claim of Trinity that the Son is uncreated is false: The Son derived life from the Father. It is also clear that omnipotence can only be attributed to the Father and not the Son, making the Father greater than the Son. It is why even though the Bible refers to Jesus christ the Son as "Mighty God"(Isaiah 9:6) and "Almighty"(Revelation 1:, only JEHOVAH is referred to as "Almighty God" or "God Almighty"(Genesis 17:1; Exodus 6:3). So although Jesus Christ possesses a form of "almightiness", being that everything was created by him and for him, hence is also referred to as Adonai, Elohim, King of kings and Lord of lords; his authority is not absolute as it excludes the very person who is responsible for his life and to whom he is subject - his Father JEHOVAH.

Moving on, let us talk about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a person. Some relevant pointers to this point are - there is no account of its creation; it does not have a name; it has never acted independently as a person; and it has never appeared as a person. Allow me to elaborate:

- The Bible tells us that the Father is uncreated, the Son is the first creature of the Father, but does not mention the nature of the creation of the Holy Spirit

- The appellation Holy Spirit simply means Spirit of the Holy One. The Holy Spirit is also called the Comforter. These are not personalized names. The Father is called JEHOVAH (meaning Self-existing One); the Son - Jesus Christ (meaning JEHOVAH will save His people through His anointed) or Logos (the Word and Purpose of God); but there is no name for the Holy Spirit.

- There are several records in the Bible of the Father acting as an independent being. Jesus the Son also acted as an independent, free thinking individual who by obedience and humility, acts in complete accordance to the dictates of his Father. The Bible does not suggest same for the Holy Spirit or give an instance of the Spirit declaring that "he" willingly chooses to always do the bidding of God the Father.

- Centuries before the earthly advent of Christ, God had prophesied that He would send a saviour to His people. When this saviour came, he came in the appearance of a human, just like you and I today. But when the Spirit, which Christ had promised his disciples before his ascension, came, it never appeared as a person or lived like a human being like Christ did with mankind for over 30 years. Rather the Spirit appeared as tongues of fire on the heads of the apostles. In fact, of all the records of encounters of the Holy Spirit, both from the Old and New Testaments, not once did it appear as a person. Even angels of God have appeared to humans and spoke in intelligible language to men and women of old. But not the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, the Holy Spirit cannot be a person. This is another falsehood of Trinity. For the fact that a lie cannot stand on its own, you will need to create a web of lies to give it as much credibility as possible. That is why I am taking my time to point out the inconsistencies in the doctrine of Trinity. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, what then is it?

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's being, an intelligence or force inherent in the very nature of God, which He shares with whoever He chooses to do His bidding. Only one individual is privileged to have received this Spirit from its very source "without measure" (John 3:34), that is Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of JEHOVAH God. All others can only access the Holy Spirit in measured quantities, right down from the Apostles to anyone who is willing to be used by it. A most apt description of the Holy Spirit is given by St. Paul when he said, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." - 2 Timothy 1:7.

We might not be able to understand entirely the nature of God and His purpose for man, (we do not even have the capacity to); but a true, clear and basic knowledge of His person and that of His Son, our Redeemer Christ is essential for our salvation. (John 17:3)

I can barely disagree with you.


My only argument is that Jesus was not created by God but was born or Begotten by God.

solite3:
Cc Anas, blabbermouth,haywizzy, blueagent, shediyinka, muttylaff

Even beyond the question of scriptural support, we must ask
the question of precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity
means. Christians say that their religion is not polytheistic,
that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate
gods but are in some way all the same being. But if this is the
case, then what is it that makes the Christian god a trinity? In
what way are the three distinct while at the same time
remaining one?
The difference is not one of presence or extent; all three
members of the Trinity are believed by Christians to be
omnipresent. The difference is not one of power; Christians
believe all members of the Trinity to be omnipotent. Nor is the
difference one of knowledge; Christians believe all members of
the Trinity to be omniscient. But what else can be the source
of the distinction? Do the members of the Trinity have
separate consciousnesses, so that their thoughts are different
from each other? Do they have separate wills, so that their
desires and preferences differ? If neither is the case, then in
what sense are they distinct?
This is the fundamental paradox of the Trinity. If the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit have separate consciousnesses or
desires, then they are each separate gods, and there is no
sense in which they are the same being. In that case,
Christianity is polytheistic. But on the other hand, if the Son
and the Holy Spirit have no separate consciousness or will
from the Father, then they have no independent existence at
all – they are merely instruments or tools through which God
works to accomplish his will. One would not call a carpenter’s
hammer a carpenter in and of itself, nor would one say that
the carpenter was the same as his hammer. In this case, if the
members of the Trinity have no separate consciousness, will
or desires, then there is no Trinity at all – the whole doctrine
is essentially just a convoluted way for God to talk to himself.
Either way, the resolution is the same: the Christian divinity
can be either one or three, but not both at the same time.
When trying to explain the meaning of the Trinity, Christian
theologians often speak of it as a divine mystery that lies
beyond full human comprehension. If this is true, it is strange
that God, if he wanted us to understand and relate to him,
would create us in such a way that a fundamental aspect of
his nature would lie forever beyond our grasp. But a more
important objection to such claims is this: If a claim is labeled
beyond our ability to understand, then how are we supposed
to tell if it is true? What assurance do theists have that the
Trinity is a true fact about the world that is genuinely beyond
our ability to comprehend, as opposed to a false claim
invented by people whose illogical nature is protected from
scrutiny by labeling it a mystery we aren’t intended to
understand?
But of course, there is no such assurance. The Trinity, if it is
to be believed, must be believed purely on the basis of faith.
And this is what i find unacceptable. Like other
religious doctrines, the Trinity bears all the hallmarks of an
idea invented by men – men who could not come up with
perfect solutions to the logical problems in the system they
had created, and so instead tried to paper over those
problems, to prevent people from examining them too closely,
by warning others in advance that this is something they
should not expect to make sense. Such irrationality should be
rejected by all thinking minds; it has never brought us
anything of benefit. The light of reason points the way to a
better path, if only we are willing to follow it.

blueAgent:
I can barely disagree with you.

My only argument is that Jesus was not created by God but was born or Begotten by God.

If you agree that Jesus was born or begotten of God, then I don't think his being created by God should be a contentious issue. Remember that issues like this sometimes come down to semantics and meanings that become lost in translation. When a male and a female copulate and have a child, they become procreators of the offspring.

If you consider the several translations of Colossians 1:15, two words which are ubiquitous are "firstborn" and "creation/creature".

[New International Version]
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

[English Standard Version]
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

[King James Bible]
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

The baseline word is the noun creation/creature. Your argument is that Jesus is not within the subset of all things created by God. A question to consider would then be, so what is Jesus "first" or "firstborn" of? In my opinion, the logical conclusion would be that Jesus himself is a part of God's creation, being the first of all things born or created by God.

Let's also look at Revelation 3:14. The Greek word used to describe Jesus is ἀρχὴ (archē) - Strong's Greek 746: From archomai; a commencement, or chief.

[New International Version]
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

[English Standard Version]
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

[King James Bible]
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

You can see how ἀρχὴ (archē) applies to this scripture.

So whether we choose to use the words born, begotten or created; while they may vary slightly in usage, it basically means that only JEHOVAH existed at some point, before He brought another completely independent being or person, Logos/Word/Jesus into existence.

In general context, while we can all said to be born or created of/by God, only Jesus Christ is begotten. I'm sure you pretty much agree with that.

okosunehis:
If you agree that Jesus was born or begotten of God, then I don't think his being created by God should be a contentious issue. Remember that issues like this sometimes come down to semantics and meanings that become lost in translation. When a male and a female copulate and have a child, they become procreators of the offspring.

If you consider the several translations of Colossians 1:15, two words which are ubiquitous are "firstborn" and "creation/creature".

[New International Version]
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

[English Standard Version]
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

[King James Bible]
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

The baseline word is the noun creation/creature. Your argument is that Jesus is not within the subset of all things created by God. A question to consider would then be, so what is Jesus "first" or "firstborn" of? In my opinion, the logical conclusion would be that Jesus himself is a part of God's creation, being the first of all things born or created by God.

Let's also look at Revelation 3:14. The Greek word used to describe Jesus is ἀρχὴ (archē) - Strong's Greek 746: From archomai; a commencement, or chief.

[New International Version]
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

[English Standard Version]
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

[King James Bible]
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

You can see how ἀρχὴ (archē) applies to this scripture.

So whether we choose to use the words born, begotten or created; while they may vary slightly in usage, it basically means that only JEHOVAH existed at some point, before He brought another completely independent being or person, Logos/Word/Jesus into existence.

In general context, while we can all said to be born or created of/by God, only Jesus Christ is begotten. I'm sure you pretty much agree with that.

Like I said before I can barely disagree with you. where I have concerns is where people( Jehovah Witness) equate Jesus to Angels and claim he is not the literal Son of God but that he is Son of God like every other created being man and Angels.

But this is contrary to the word of God that says Jesus is the express image of God, who has the fullness of the Godhead(divinity) dwelling in him and that he Came forth or come out from his father. note the came forth and came out are not Idioms.

Perhaps this verse might help sort out this trinity dispute;

Matthew 1 v 23;
“Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”)

*

OkCornel:
Perhaps this verse might help sort out this trinity dispute;

Matthew 1 v 23;
“Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”)

Jehu= Jehovah is He.
Elias= Jehovah is God.
Oga mi, so, what's your point?

Mary give "birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “ God with us ”).
In other words "Mary is the Mother of God with us"
Sir, do you subscribe to the Catholic belief?

okosunehis:
If you agree that Jesus was born or begotten of God, then I don't think his being created by God should be a contentious issue. Remember that issues like this sometimes come down to semantics and meanings that become lost in translation. When a male and a female copulate and have a child, they become procreators of the offspring.

If you consider the several translations of Colossians 1:15, two words which are ubiquitous are "firstborn" and "creation/creature".

[New International Version]
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

[English Standard Version]
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

[King James Bible]
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

The baseline word is the noun creation/creature. Your argument is that Jesus is not within the subset of all things created by God. A question to consider would then be, so what is Jesus "first" or "firstborn" of? In my opinion, the logical conclusion would be that Jesus himself is a part of God's creation, being the first of all things born or created by God.

Let's also look at Revelation 3:14. The Greek word used to describe Jesus is ἀρχὴ (archē) - Strong's Greek 746: From archomai; a commencement, or chief.

[New International Version]
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.

[English Standard Version]
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

[King James Bible]
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

You can see how ἀρχὴ (archē) applies to this scripture.

So whether we choose to use the words born, begotten or created; while they may vary slightly in usage, it basically means that only JEHOVAH existed at some point, before He brought another completely independent being or person, Logos/Word/Jesus into existence.

In general context, while we can all said to be born or created of/by God, only Jesus Christ is begotten. I'm sure you pretty much agree with that.

1. "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not
say to you that I shall pray the Father for you;
2. "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have
loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from
God .
3. "I came forth from the Father and have come into
the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the
Father." John 16:26-28

The words came forth and came out are not idioms

The phrase "came forth " is translated from the Greek word:
("exerchomai " Strongs # 1831) which
means to "issued forth " or to have " issued from". Jesus issued
forth from the Father. In the next verse, "proceeded forth " also
comes from the same Greek word.
The next Scripture is very interesting. In verse 41, the leaders
decided to push their point by saying that they were not
illegitimate like Jesus was. Thus they were saying Jesus was
Illegitimate!
In response, Jesus expanded His message by telling them
where He actually came from. So, Jesus told them that He
was not illegitimate at all. He proceeded forth from God!
Christ told them: If God were their father, they would love Him
because He came out of the Father, and He came from God,
who sent Him into the world.
Jesus was speaking very plainly, telling them where He came
from, yet it was as if they had not heard Him:
1. "You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to
Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one
Father--God."
2. Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you
would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from
God ; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me .
3. "Why do you not understand My speech? Because
you are not able to listen to My word. John 8:41-43
Jesus said He came forth from God when He was accused of
being illegitimate. So it is clear that Jesus was speaking of
His original birth from the Creator. Jesus is not illegitimate!
In this and the next Scripture we find that Jesus spoke of two
different events. 1) He proceeded forth or He came forth from
God and, 2) He came into the world (God sent Him).
The text is not just a fancy way to describe His coming to the
earth twice. But rather, Jesus was saying that He proceeded
forth from God and He also came from God who sent Him to
the earth.
1. "Now they have known that all things which You
have given Me are from You.
2. "For I have given to them the words which You
have given Me; and they have received them, and have
known surely that I came forth from You; and they
have believed that You sent Me. John 17:7-8
Christ's followers knew that Jesus came forth from God and
they also believed that God had sent Him to the earth.
Since He was the only begotten Son of God, Jesus was
actually composed out of the "stuff" of God! He was in the
form of God!
1. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ
Jesus ,
2. who, being in the form of God , did not consider it
robbery to be equal with God , Philippians 2:5-6
Jesus came forth from His Father in the form of God.

blueAgent:
1. "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not
say to you that I shall pray the Father for you;
2. "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have
loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from
God .
3. "I came forth from the Father and have come into
the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the
Father." John 16:26-28

The words came forth and came out are not idioms

The phrase "came forth " is translated from the Greek word:
("exerchomai " Strongs # 1831) which
means to "issued forth " or to have " issued from". Jesus issued
forth from the Father. In the next verse, "proceeded forth " also
comes from the same Greek word.
The next Scripture is very interesting. In verse 41, the leaders
decided to push their point by saying that they were not
illegitimate like Jesus was. Thus they were saying Jesus was
Illegitimate!
In response, Jesus expanded His message by telling them
where He actually came from. So, Jesus told them that He
was not illegitimate at all. He proceeded forth from God!
Christ told them: If God were their father, they would love Him
because He came out of the Father, and He came from God,
who sent Him into the world.
Jesus was speaking very plainly, telling them where He came
from, yet it was as if they had not heard Him:
1. "You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to
Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one
Father--God."
2. Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you
would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from
God ; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me .
3. "Why do you not understand My speech? Because
you are not able to listen to My word. John 8:41-43
Jesus said He came forth from God when He was accused of
being illegitimate. So it is clear that Jesus was speaking of
His original birth from the Creator. Jesus is not illegitimate!
In this and the next Scripture we find that Jesus spoke of two
different events. 1) He proceeded forth or He came forth from
God and, 2) He came into the world (God sent Him).
The text is not just a fancy way to describe His coming to the
earth twice. But rather, Jesus was saying that He proceeded
forth from God and He also came from God who sent Him to
the earth.
1. "Now they have known that all things which You
have given Me are from You.
2. "For I have given to them the words which You
have given Me; and they have received them, and have
known surely that I came forth from You; and they
have believed that You sent Me. John 17:7-8
Christ's followers knew that Jesus came forth from God and
they also believed that God had sent Him to the earth.
Since He was the only begotten Son of God, Jesus was
actually composed out of the "stuff" of God! He was in the
form of God!
1. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ
Jesus ,
2. who, being in the form of God , did not consider it
robbery to be equal with God , Philippians 2:5-6
Jesus came forth from His Father in the form of God.

Thanks for your response bro. Referring to Jesus as an angel is right, but he is an arch angel; the first and the greatest; by which all others were created. He is a son like no other, an angel like none else; the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. He is in a class of his own.

Concerning the Greek word "exerchomai", I took time to look into it. Of the 224 times it (and its derivatives) is used in the New Testament, only six times (John 8:42; 13:3; 16:27, 28, 30; 17: does it suggest anything related to creation, and that is if we are going by your understanding of it. Thayer's Greek Lexicon states that such usage is even metaphorical. You can click the link below:

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G1831/exerchomai.htm

Looking at those six verses, the crux of Christ's declaration is not about creation but about having been with the Father (in His company) and sent by Him. In fact, in John 13:3 and 16:28, he went further to say that not only was he from God, but that he would also return to God. Of course this cannot mean that he is returning to the body of God from whence you say he was created. It simply means he is returning to heaven, to be reunited with God, in company and not body.

We can also look at 1 John 2:19 where a derivative of Exerchomai - "exēlthan" is used. Here, Apostle John said, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." So having come out or forth from something does not presume concord or unified purpose, neither does it even suggest creation. Rather John is disclaiming antichrists, even though they may at some point, been working with true disciples of Jesus Christ.

Personally, I don't think anyone can claim to totally understand the full nature of the creative process by which the Father JEHOVAH gave life to the Son Jesus. If you consider us humans for example, although scientists have done a lot to unravel the physical nature of man's reproductive or procreative process, the spiritual nature of man is almost a complete mystery. How does a spirit being birth another spirit being? How can a physical man even explain that?!

Your posit would be a very beautiful way to look at it though. Maybe comparable to the way a child emerges from the the very body of the mother, having been formed by the egg cells of both parents. Also similar to how Eve was created from the body of Adam and not entirely of herself. But to reiterate, I cannot arrive at that conclusion from available scripture.

That said, being perfect spiritual persons of the highest imaginable essence, I will want to believe that the productive process which birthed Christ must be one of utmost perfection. More perfect than whatever is humanly imaginable, even cloning. Hence he being the express image of God, possessing the fullness of the Father, being in the very nature of God Himself! Indeed, Christ is Almighty, but not the Almighty God. But we must remember that however we want to look at it, nothing is impossible with God!

Janosky:
Jehu= Jehovah is He.
Elias= Jehovah is God.
Oga mi, so, what's your point?

Mary give "birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “ God with us ”).
In other words "Mary is the Mother of God with us"
Sir, do you subscribe to the Catholic belief?

I’m letting the scripture speak for itself na...


Or the birth of Jesus is no longer the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy on Emmanuel (i.e GOD with us)?

And what’s the Mary mother of God hullabaloo all about?

OkCornel:


I’m letting the scripture speak for itself na...


Or the birth of Jesus is no longer the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy on Emmanuel (i.e GOD with us)?

And what’s the Mary mother of God hullabaloo all about?

You're saying Mary gave birth to God with us= Mother of God.
It's six not half a dozen ? Na wa oo!

John20:17, "God with us" returns to his Father and his God, our Father and our God.
Rev 3:5,12 "God with us" is God's son in heaven. Oga mi, Do you agree?

Janosky:
You're saying Mary gave birth to God with us= Mother of God.
It's six not half a dozen ? Na wa oo!

John20:17, "God with us" returns to his Father and his God, our Father and our God.
Rev 3:5,12 "God with us" is God's son in heaven. Oga mi, Do you agree?

Please where does the scriptures give this title to Mary as “mother of God”?

I’m merely letting the scripture speak for itself. I’m not adding anything else to it.


Is the birth of Jesus no longer a fulfilment of the prophecy of Immanuel (God with us)?

And this concept of “trinity” sounds more like 3 separate entities sharing one mind.

Each of them are always on the same page, never in conflict with one another.

By extension, this is the kind of relationship the Eternal Creator wants with us. Where HE is worshiped in SPIRIT & TRUTH.

For as many are led by the Spirit, these ones are called the SONS OF GOD.

Cheers and good morning everyone.

OkCornel:
Please where does the scriptures give this title to Mary as “mother of God”?

I’m merely letting the scripture speak for itself. I’m not adding anything else to it.


Is the birth of Jesus no longer a fulfilment of the prophecy of Immanuel (God with us)?

solite3:
The biblical evidence points to Jesus as being the Son of God who is God incarnated.

The Son of Almighty God is Almighty God.

The scam amplified by solite3 gave birth to the claim that Mary is “mother of God”

Janosky:
The scam amplified by solite3 gave birth to the claim that Mary is “mother of God”

Oh, that’s a different talk altogether then.

OkCornel:
And this concept of “trinity” sounds more like 3 separate entities sharing one mind.

Each of them are always on the same page, never in conflict with one another.


Cheers and good morning everyone.

@1 Corinthians 1:10

"I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by
the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live
in harmony with each other.... Rather, BE OF ONE MIND, united in thought and purpose."

@1 Corinthians 1:10, "ONE MIND", makes them One Being/Entity as Trinity claims ?

Janosky:
@1 Corinthians 1:10

"I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by
the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live
in harmony with each other.... Rather, BE OF ONE MIND, united in thought and purpose."

@1 Corinthians 1:10, "ONE MIND", makes them One Being/Entity as Trinity claims ?

Yeah, sort of. That’s the core of this whole “trinity” concept. Everyone is of one mind...

Something similar that triggered God’s alarm bells in that Tower of Babel rebellion episode.


God wants His followers to be of one mind with Him. The moment we yield our lives to the leading of the Spirit, we become the sons of God.

[]

OkCornel:
Yeah, sort of. That’s the core of this whole “trinity” concept. Everyone is of one mind...

How does "Everyone is of one mind" (or 3 persons ) translate to One God ?
Wetin Musa no go see for gate ...

OkCornel:
Yeah, sort of. That’s the core of this whole “trinity” concept. Everyone is of one mind...

Something similar that triggered God’s alarm bells in that Tower of Babel rebellion episode.

God wants His followers to be of one mind with Him. The moment we yield our lives to the leading of the Spirit, we become the sons of God.

While your analogy has some coherence, it is not what the doctrine of Trinity says. Let me share excerpts of the Athanasian Creed which Trinity basically takes its authority from:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith...

"And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God...

"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity...

"This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

I'm sure you can see that your idea of Trinity is quite different from what the authorities suppose. As much as Christ likened himself to the Father, he never placed himself on an equal pedestal with his Father. The Bible is replete with texts that affirm this. When we yield ourselves to the leading of God's Spirit, we act in accordance to His purpose. That does not in anyway suggest that we become equal to our Creator; not in body, not in soul and not in spirit.