Evidence for God from Science

ok so it seems i went a bit over everybody's head???

to make it shorter and more simple, the doctrine of the trinity is fake. It was made by an Emperor and a council of Bishops in a documented 4th century decree. It served 2 purposes:
1. to maintain a peace and balance in an empire that was very vast and under the verge of civil conflict over religious beliefs between monotheists and polytheists.
2. to keep Constantine and the bishops in power.
It served no other purpose and did it's job very well. unfortunately after over 1,700 years of free reign it has become a core part of modern Christianity. I don't know how much believing in the trinity hurts someone...i guess it depends on how much energy they put into it or how it affects their understanding of and relationship to the Christ.

ok so it seems i went a bit over everybody's head???

No, it just seems you are out of your head.

Seriously man. Quit the conspiracy theories and read the bible. The trinity is in scripture.

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper the more you write.

oh no, this is not my theory or even a conspiracy really. Here is a snippet of a very in depth report from deep digging Christian biblical researchers. I can try and post a link if you want to read it all. it's quite long. This all has verified proof.

I totally understand your suggestion to read the bible and that trinity is in the scripture. I used to be that same way, but The Bible you're suggesting I read was mostly created by the people who made the doctrine in the first place. Think of it like this. Say a man runs into a bank to rob it and shoots 7 people dead. Then he gets out a piece of paper and writes "he did not shoot these people and the fingerprints on the gun are his twin brother's". With the logic you are suggesting, You would let him go because, hey it's written there that he didn't do it....because HE WROTE IT! Of course the trinity is in YOUR bible. Rome put it there. So in order to know whether it's true or not, you have to look outside Rome, before Rome. when you do you see it's not there. Then ask yourself "why is it not there before Rome, but it is after?"that will lead you to where the truth is.

When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the EXPLICIT IDEA of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith.. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine.

Since the doctrine is unscriptural, it took an emperor to make Christianity start embracing the concept.

It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance"). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata had been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor had spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position.

There is only one passage in the Authorized Version of the Bible used by Trinitarians to support their view.

I John 5:7-8, For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in Earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. AV

Editors added the bracketed words in the early fourth century to the Latin Vulgate translation. They are not in the older Greek manuscripts. For this reason, modern translations omit them. Bible commentaries explain that these words were never in the apostle John's manuscript or any existing early copies of it.

How does the Trinity Doctrine apply to mankind?

God's PURPOSE in having created humanity – is to reproduce GOD.

God is not merely one Person, nor even limited to a "Trinity," but God is FAMILY. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a family.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/biblical-corruption.htm

or you can check out this link. It's even longer of a read but it has all the paperwork needed to prove what I have learned. It's not a fun thing and yes, it hurts initially to come to this realization, but after wards it's like the clouds lifting and suddenly all those questions you could never really answer are...answered

I think you are being duped. Relax, I read the articles at reluctant messenger..and foundthem not so impressive. What you have at your hands in the end, is that Christ is not God and that is where you need to decide, if you want to go down this road.

Secretfire,

That website you posted should be called "the extremely deluded messenger".

Man, you need to stop reading his crap. In this link, he promotes reincarnation and Hinduism. The guy is a kook:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation.htm

First thing you need to do is trust Christ for salvation. Then you need to ask God for discernment. You are getting sucked into all this false religion.

The Lord Jesus, fully God, was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!" (NIV)
Philippians 2:5-8

Some translations: "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God" Phil. 2:6 (English Standard Version)

Interpretation Points:

A. Jesus was "in the form of God" or as the NIV better translates "being in very nature God"

B. But though "being in very nature God", He "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped," .. that means He did NOT hold on to it with power and force.

C. Instead the Lord Christ "made himself nothing."
(1) In order for Him to make Himself nothing, He would have had to have the power to make Himself nothing
(2) Since He made Himself into nothing, that COMPELLINGLY means that He HAD BEEN something, and this passage identifies what that SOMETHING was, namely He was
"in the form of God" or as the NIV BETTER TRANSLATES IT, He was "being in very nature God."

D. The Lord Christ made Himself into "NOTHING" and this Philippians passage then explains what that actually meant, which was these realities;
(1) "taking the very nature of a servant,"
(2) "being made in human likeness"
(3) "being found in appearance as a man."
(4) "He humbled himself and became obedient to death."

All that together means this: The Lord Christ, though He was God, laid aside His Godhood, and submitted to death on the cross in order to save God's people.

If the Lord Christ is not God, then we have no salvation.

_____________

Also reference the following. These 3 New Testament passages harmonize perfectly with the Philippians 2:5-8 passage.

(1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1-3

(2) "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Col. 1:15-17

(3) Compare 1 Cor. 8:6

Its rock solid.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

PS
.. lol .. In my opinion, Non-Trinitarians are not to be taken seriously. This issue has already been settled by the Christian Church. Its the old dead worn out
Gnostics stuff and the followers of Arius [Arianism] that existed on the fringes of Christendom long ago.

The doctrine of the Trinity is essential to any sane interpretation of the Bible and therefore to any reasonable Christian Theological System,
while the non-Trinitarian interpretation stands the Bible on it's head up-side down, and makes any rational/logical interpretation of the Bible
and Christianity utterly impossible.

On a non-Trinitarian approach to the Bible, to Christendom, to Christendom's Theological System, and to the Christian Philosophical System,
one can never rise higher .. lol .. than The Watchtower.

I note that the Gnostics and followers of Arius on the fringes of Christendom have had some 2000 years to preach their message,
yet they have failed to convert the huge body of Christendom over to their non-Trinitarian false doctrines.

♣

Man is to uphold God’s word without removing or adding an iota. The word trinity doesn’t appear in the scriptures. No man is authorised to change what God said once for all.

Having said this, there are hundreds of proof texts (beyond manipulations or additions like the three heavenly witnesses of 1Jn 5:7) to none stating beyond any doubt that the Father is the only true/one God. See Jn 17:3, 20:17, 1Cor 8:6 or opening of almost every epistle like Rom 1:7, 1Cor 1:3 and so on whereby the Holy Spirit is not mentioned & Jesus called Lord according to Ac 2:36.

Anybody pointing to manipulated texts like Jn 1 as supposed proof of the "Trinity God" (it doesn't even remotedly mention the Trinity God") has no Biblical understanding that Jesus and the apostles almost always referred to the prophets. Thus John referred to Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9, Isa 11:1-3, 53 in general and to 2Sam 7:12 in particular.

The capital “Word” and “him” appears in the KJV of 1611 for the first time. Prior to this one all known translations rendered low “word” and “it”.

Let me stress that the main stream Christians worship two man-made “Gods” instead of the Father the only one true God. It amounts to blasphemy and idolatry.

RickD wrote:Secretfire,

That website you posted should be called "the extremely deluded messenger".

Man, you need to stop reading his crap. In this link, he promotes reincarnation and Hinduism. The guy is a kook:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation.htm

First thing you need to do is trust Christ for salvation. Then you need to ask God for discernment. You are getting sucked into all this false religion.

hey RickD. I did all that. I absolutely trust in Jesus the Christ as my truth, my light my way and have multiple times asked for a nudge in the right direction. It is what has led me right to sources like reluctant messenger and other unconnected sources that say the same things. When I have asked the question about Who exactly is the Christ, I recieve answers like "The Christ is your king and your messiah and the Christ is your brother under the one father".

The other problem is that all the pro trinity or pro modalism can do is quote and interpret Bible verses to me. That is meaningless to me because the validity of those verses is what is in question. Again it's like trying to tell me a murder is innocent because they wrote down on a piece of paper that they didn't do it. Show me evidence of his innocence that he didn't create himself. Likewise, I have to look outside of the bible in order to find the truth. I want to know what was taught before the bible, what did the apostles teach? The only way to know is to go to the people who were with them, or learned from them at that time. That's the Essenes, the original congregations, church fathers and the Gnostics, not the council of Nicaea. I hope you guys understand where I'm coming from. If I could spend 5 years in each of the world's religions I'd do that, so I could learn something. I understand your concern. The more I read the more it pushes me away from the church, but it is not pushing me away from God or the Christ.

Man is to uphold God’s word without removing or adding an iota. The word trinity doesn’t appear in the scriptures. No man is authorised to change what God said once for all.

Having said this, there are hundreds of proof texts (beyond manipulations or additions like the three heavenly witnesses of 1Jn 5:7) to none stating beyond any doubt that the Father is the only true/one God. See Jn 17:3, 20:17, 1Cor 8:6 or opening of almost every epistle like Rom 1:7, 1Cor 1:3 and so on whereby the Holy Spirit is not mentioned & Jesus called Lord according to Ac 2:36.

Pointing to manipulated texts like Jn 1 has no Biblical basis.Jesus and the apostles almost always referred to the prophets. Thus John referred to Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9, Isa 11:1-3, 53 in general and to 2Sam 7:12 in particular.
The capital “Word” and “him” appears in the KJV of 1611 for the first time. Prior to this one all known translations rendered low “word” and “it”.

The main stream Christians worship two man-made “Gods” instead of the Father the only one true God.

Well, the oneness folks are at it again. maybe reading to much Crusader Comics...

The Christian Orthodox doctrine of God's Triune nature is thoroughly embedded in the Old Testament... See the link on this below for more details...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33317

Looks like the KJV only and oneness folks act more in line with fear touted from Chick Publishing and other websites linked earlier by other posters on this thread.

Anyways, ya all have a nice day
-
-
-

jerzy wrote:Man is to uphold God’s word without removing or adding an iota. The word trinity doesn’t appear in the scriptures. No man is authorised to change what God said once for all.

Having said this, there are hundreds of proof texts (beyond manipulations or additions like the three heavenly witnesses of 1Jn 5:7) to none stating beyond any doubt that the Father is the only true/one God. See Jn 17:3, 20:17, 1Cor 8:6 or opening of almost every epistle like Rom 1:7, 1Cor 1:3 and so on whereby the Holy Spirit is not mentioned & Jesus called Lord according to Ac 2:36.

Pointing to manipulated texts like Jn 1 has no Biblical basis.Jesus and the apostles almost always referred to the prophets. Thus John referred to Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9, Isa 11:1-3, 53 in general and to 2Sam 7:12 in particular.
The capital “Word” and “him” appears in the KJV of 1611 for the first time. Prior to this one all known translations rendered low “word” and “it”.

The main stream Christians worship two man-made “Gods” instead of the Father the only one true God.

Typical of someone that has decided that their view on the Trinity is the correct one and then goes about showing how THEIR view ( not the doctrine) is wrong.
I feel sorry for Thomas, poor guy saw the risen Christ and the first words out of his mouth were blasphemous !!

It doesn’t surprise me at all that people use modified texts whereby Thomas supposed to call Jesus God while neither Jesus knew he was God no any of the apostles or epistle writers knew it.

In the contrary, they state in hundreds of fool-proof texts that the Father is the only one/true/our God.

I would like to ask PaulSacramento what in this text or any of the proof texts makes him decide that the original word should be rendered “God” instead of, say, ruler or king which conforms with many texts like Lu 1:32.

Further, the question is where was the King David’s throne? Is it proper for God to be “elevated” or should we rather say “demoted” to the position of an earthly King?

Besides, God doesn’t offer a view on His supposed Trinity Godhead/nature. He doesn’t even mention the word trinity. Instead, God clearly state over and over that He “the Father” is the only one/true/our God.

I don’t offer views on what God says. I quote from God’s word.

Man’s “view” counts for nothing. God’s word is what counts.


B.W.

How you can say that “The Christian Orthodox doctrine of God's Triune nature is thoroughly embedded in the Old Testament...” if Jesus himself contradicts you in many fool-proof texts like Jn 17:3 or Jn 20:17?

Are you saying that Jesus was proven wrong in this link: ” viewtopic.php?f=22&t=33317”?

Could you, please point to the OT texts which proves your claim?

jerzy wrote:It doesn’t surprise me at all that people use modified texts whereby Thomas supposed to call Jesus God while neither Jesus knew he was God no any of the apostles or epistle writers knew it.

In the contrary, they state in hundreds of fool-proof texts that the Father is the only one/true/our God.

I would like to ask PaulSacramento what in this text or any of the proof texts makes him decide that the original word should be rendered “God” instead of, say, ruler or king which conforms with many texts like Lu 1:32.

Further, the question is where was the King David’s throne? Is it proper for God to be “elevated” or should we rather say “demoted” to the position of an earthly King?

Besides, God doesn’t offer a view on His supposed Trinity Godhead/nature. He doesn’t even mention the word trinity. Instead, God clearly state over and over that He “the Father” is the only one/true/our God.

I don’t offer views on what God says. I quote from God’s word.

Man’s “view” counts for nothing. God’s word is what counts.


B.W.

How you can say that “The Christian Orthodox doctrine of God's Triune nature is thoroughly embedded in the Old Testament...” if Jesus himself contradicts you in many fool-proof texts like Jn 17:3 or Jn 20:17?

Are you saying that Jesus was proven wrong in this link: ” viewtopic.php?f=22&t=33317”?

Could you, please point to the OT texts which proves your claim?

Old Testament:

Note Genesis 1:1-31 for starters

New Testament:

...and try Hebrews 1:1 KJV and Hebrews 1:2 KJV

John 1:1-4, 14 NLT, "In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He existed in the beginning with God. 3 God created everything through him,and nothing was created except through him. 4 The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.... 14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son."

Lastly, you do not understand the Messiah and who he is and was and will always be...
-
-
-

B.W.

None of your texts state that God is Trinity.

Jn 1 is not a proof text. It has been molested this way since the KJV of 1611.

As I said above, Jesus and the apostles/epistle writers almost always referred to the prophets. None mentioned that “word” denoted Jesus. Thus John must have referred to Isa 555:11, Ps 33:6+9, 2Sam 7:12 to mention but few. By the way, please read 2Sam 7:12 carefully.

As the matter of fact texts like Ac 10:36 or Re 20:4 preclude such rendition of Jn 1.

Further, all of the known translations prior to the KJV of 1611 do not capitalize the “word” and render “it” instead of the modern “him”.

But since you keep using the Jn 1 text can you tell us what makes you think that this text or any proof text (there is none) warrants such rendition?

Thanks B.W.