A simple definition of the trinity to which I would adhere is that the three persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same God and Lord Jehovah who made all things in the beginning

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to A simple definition of the trinity to which I would adhere is that the three persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same God and Lord Jehovah who made all things in the beginning

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sola Scriptura makes obligatory for the Trinitarians to believe in the divine nature of Devil (2 Cor 4:4), man’s belly (Phil 3:19), and the saints who were born of the God (John 1:13) along with the Word of John 1:1. Then, what has become of them? Look at what it makes they become. A confusing heathen who refuse to live with their polytheism.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Several proofs that the Holy Spirit is not divine:
    (i) Not immediately omniscient.
    Spirit needs a lot of works to search and know things, even to search and know of God’s attributes. Spirit is not associated with omniscience. Rather, Spirit is just a symbol of gradual capability of the worldly generation to accept a heavenly knowledge.
    1Cor 2:10
    But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

    (ii) Being identified with the works rather than the will.
    God wills to divide abilities of saints by giving their inner-self the works, i.e. selfsame Spirit.
    1Cor 12:11
    But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

    (iii) Being associated with the emotion.
    Ancient Jews knew that the Spirit is just an emotion of the holy God, but nobody considers the emotion as a different person.
    Isa 63:10
    But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Since the world (eonos) was made thru Jesus the Logos, and the same world (eonos) has the Devil as god (ho theos), what does it mean? In one sense it may infer that the Word is devil. In other interpretation, Paul is a Gnostic henotheist who believes in hierarchical Gods, and one of those Gods is a devil who makes the word (eonos).
    Heb 1:2
    Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
    2Cor 4:4
    In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    Other interpretation is, the word “Theos” (as well as Elohim) doesn’t always mean Jehovah who doesn’t have or know any other god beside. Jesus worships his God, i.e. Jehovah.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Among the creations, which/ whom Jesus is counted very much lesser than?
    (i) Melchisedek.
    Heb 7
    15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever following to the order of Melchisedec.

    (ii) Heavenly temple.
    Jesus has the role as a priest who enters and serves in a heavenly temple. Any temple is more greater than its servile priest.
    Heb 9
    23 But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

    (iii) Angels.
    Heb 2:9
    But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    (iv) John the Baptist.
    Lk 7:28
    For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
    Jesus was restricted by John’s baptism under which Jesus was baptised using the water:
    Lk 12:50
    But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.

    (v) The least saints in God’s kingdom.
    The least saints are greater than John. Since John is greater man born of woman, he is greater than Jesus, the least saints must be greater than Jesus as well.
    Lk 7:28
    For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

    (vi) The miracle workers after the time of Jesus.
    Jn 14:12
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The Trinitarians used to cite two verses Acts 5:3-4 to argue for divine nature of the Holy Spirit, but they are wrong as actually each verse has different emphasis. In Acts 5:3 Peter points to Satan as the source of lying to the Spirit from within, so that it is Satan who lies to the Spirit.
    On other hand, in Acts 5:4 Peter points directly to Ananias himself, that his own decision and power – as precisely Peter uses a word “thou” rather than Satan, and phrase “thine own power” rather than Satan’s – has conceived the actual price from Peter and the God.
    This doesn’t mean Peter is the God.
    Acts 5
    3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power (exousia)? why hast thou (ethou) conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but the God (to theo).

    Moreover, the Trinitarians never attribute absoluteness of “the” God (to theo) to the Spirit. Only the Oneness Pentecostals would have said that. Hence, two verses Acts 5:3-4 can’t be used to argue for divine nature of the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian belief.
    However, both verses could be argued by the Oneness Pentecostals for their oneness heresy.

  6. Anonymous says:

    More and more Christians believe that Jesus was not always the “Son of God” – he was not the Son prior to his incarnation, nor was he generated eternally – because the context and structure of illustrations in Hebrews 1 doesn’t refer to the primordial events but just two important “earthy experiences” of Jesus temporarily, namely his first given Sonship started from the conception in the womb of Mary (Heb 1:5, Lk 1:35) and his ascension (Heb 1:13).
    The same exact phrase “at any time” in Heb 1:5 and Heb 1:13 doesn’t mean the preexistence.
    Overall, Heb 1 doesn’t tell the primordial events since Heb 1:13 just talks about earthy event, surely Jesus can’t ascend up before he is sent down.
    Heb 1:5
    For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
    Heb 1:13
    But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

    As consequence, there’s no such a thing as “Eternal generation” of the Son unless the Trinitarians ought to believe in such a thing as “Eternal ascension” as well.
    That also perfectly explains why the Jews never found any idea of Sonship of Jesus prior in their Tanach. Jesus’ sonship is as worldly matter as his ascension.

    Hence, Mt 18:19 (about the baptism using the name of Son) doesn’t refer to the eternal personae of Son, but just to Jesus’ temporary earthy status.

  7. θ says:

    If one reads Gospel of John from 13 to 17, without having any preconception of the crucifixion, he will reasonably make a simple conclusion that Jesus just gets ready to return – ascending up – to God in heaven. That’s it. Isn’t it weird how throughout John 13 to John 17, at his last night with his Disciples there’s one big thing missing: Jesus never tells nor indicates about his crucifixion at all.

  8. θ says:

    Learning from many speculations of the Rabbis went wrong and unfulfilled concerning the future and Moshiach, one should be as well highly doubtful of what the Epistles (of Paul, John, Jude and others) have speculated a lot about the second coming of Jesus.

    Not only incoming event of crucifixion that ironically Jesus never gets aware of from John 13 to John 17, one should also just limit himself to believe strictly on what Jesus says in Gospels concerning the far future events.

  9. Anonymous says:

    One entity having a permanent multipersonal split is called schizophrenia in this life.
    You can’t argue seriously with those who believe in one unfit God.

  10. θ says:

    The idea of persona (hypostasis) comes from the Greek philosophy, and the Trinitarians just borrowed that term lightly on surface but never committed to the word’s factual application according to the Greek definition.
    For the Greeks, one persona can’t share two existences or more at once. Since, the Trinitarian version of Jesus has two “existences”, i.e. a human and Jehovah, he ought to have two personas as well.

    To be able to fit in the Greek philosophy, Jesus must have to have two personas (two hypostases) in order to indwell two natures. Otherwise, it is not the hypostasis the Greeks know about.

  11. θ says:

    In other words, if it is possible for Jehovah to split the personality, Jesus should have been able to have a split personality as well.

  12. hyungpark says:

    In fiction (e.g. harry potter) you know the word “Horcrux”, one magical person shares many personas in many natures.
    A Horcrux is an object in which a Dark wizard or witch has hidden a fragment of his or her soul for the purpose of attaining immortality.[1] Horcruxes can only be created after committing murder, the supreme act of evil.

  13. hyungpark says:

    christians worship you-know-who

  14. hyungpark says:

    it is mystery for the schizophrenic to be voldemort.

  15. hyungpark says:

    it is not coincident if Jesus likens himself to the snake transforming from the rod of Moses. It is a Parseltongue. Everyone knows that’s the mark of a Dark Wizard. Have you ever heard of a decent one who could talk to snakes? They called Slytherin himself Serpent-tongue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.