Can you be saved and reject the Trinity?

[Free]

Eve,

Who was he talking to? Well, Who was there? In whose image?

In God's image alone, as the text indicates. We are not made in the image of "the hosts of heaven," be it angels or otherwise.

Gen. 1:26-27, "26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

There really is no getting around this passage.

 

[Eve777]

Gen. 1:26-27, "26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

It is the same you know. The image is not outward appearance but Spiritual. We are not made in the image of God that you can see. God is spirit, so is the host of Heaven....When God created our bodies from the dust of the ground, that was the earthly image, not the image of God. But the question I believe was "Who was he talking to".......some say Jesus but the Bible does not say that or even imply that. I think he was talking to the host of Heaven.

"The Glory that he had before the world was" is the Scripture most used but read the very first verse of the Bible....what does it say?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


I know what I see. It says the Spirit of God created everything...it doesn't mention a helper or another creator....we know the angels and the host of Heaven were there already,,,see JOB... but there is no mention of a co_creator...

So when you put these things together, it makes more sense to think the host of Heaven and the angels were the ones he was talking too.

 

[Free]

Eve,

It says the Spirit of God created everything...it doesn't mention a helper or another creator

Interesting that it doesn't say "God the Spirit" or just "God." But the point I was making was the God says "let us" and then the text states that God made man "in His own image." We are made in God's image alone, therefore, God could not have been meaning the hosts of heaven as "us."

 

[Eve777]

You missed the point..God is Spirit...the Heavenly Host are Spirit....Angels are Spirit (although they can visit Earth in a form we can see) We are made in the Spiritual image of God. Our spirit is not our problem...our spirit did not sin....it is our carnal bodies that sin..our soul also which is our person or personality... that is what needs atonement.....not our spirit.....


Num 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.


Pro 20:27 The spirit of man [is] the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.


The spirit of man is our conscious. It is why even when we were yet sinners, we would feel bad if we did anything wrong. In other words,,it is like God lights up the insides of sinners and shows them their sin. God already knows your sin but he is showing it to you so you will know...


This is the way I feel the Holy Spirit has led me on this. I'm not teaching, just sharing. Feel free to disagree..It won't hurt my feelings.

 

[DivineNames]

But the point I was making was the God says "let us" and then the text states that God made man "in His own image." We are made in God's image alone, therefore, God could not have been meaning the hosts of heaven as "us."

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective

by Richard Harvey


http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/iss ... rinity.htm


I came across this article which considers the question.

 

[Free]

Thanks for the link, it is very interesting.

 

[Adams son]

The notion that one had to believe in the Trinity to be saved was a method used by the church authorities who had developed the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century to control the masses.

In other words, the notion is a complete invention of men. It is disturbing that anyone should insist belief in this doctrine is necessary for salvation when such a notion was unheard of for the first four centuries of the church.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

The notion that one had to believe in the Trinity to be saved was a method used by the church authorities who had developed the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century to control the masses.

In other words, the notion is a complete invention of men. It is disturbing that anyone should insist belief in this doctrine is necessary for salvation when such a notion was unheard of for the first four centuries of the church.

Wrong.

Trinitarian quotes before the Council of Nicea (325):

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

 

[DM]

On the Trinity.

The question of this thread asks if one can be saved and reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It's similar to the argument which was made in Acts chapter 15 by the Jews who asserted that circumcision was the crux of a similar dilemma. Their legitimage question in those days was, "Can you be saved and reject the doctrine of circumcision?" We all know the answer to that thanks to Paul's recounting the incident for us.

I'd like to develop this question further by asking, "Can you be saved and reject the doctrine of Dispensationalism?"

I live in Albuquerque, N.M. where recently our primary Christian radio station in town pulled Hank Hannagraaff's show called, "The Bible Answer Man Broadcast" - because of the strong emphasis he was placing on his Preterist viewpoints. They did not hesitate to point out that this was a "non-essential" - and yet, apparently it ruffled enough feathers to cause them to discontinue his broadcast in this city (at least on that particular station).

Now . . . the bottom line is this. Either Dispensationalism is the Truth, or Preterism is the Truth (or perhaps, neither view is true). But clearly, BOTH views cannot be Truth.

Why shouldn't we conclude that this is an "essential" to the faith? After all, either Truth or falsehood is being presented there.

Moreover, how is this any different from the doctrine of the Trinity? Who gets to decide what's "essential"?

Peace in Him,
David

 

[evanman]

Circumcision is essential for salvation! Paul says so.

NOT Circumcision of the flesh, but of the heart!

This is different to other doctrines, for this is a biblical doctrine declared plainly in the Holy Scriptures.

Dispensationalism is not plainly taught.

 

[Adams son]

[quote="Adams son":af441]The notion that one had to believe in the Trinity to be saved was a method used by the church authorities who had developed the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century to control the masses.

In other words, the notion is a complete invention of men. It is disturbing that anyone should insist belief in this doctrine is necessary for salvation when such a notion was unheard of for the first four centuries of the church.

Wrong.

Trinitarian quotes before the Council of Nicea (325):

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).[/quote:af441]

To say these men were "Trinitarian" is expressly naive of the facts or an intentional evasion of them. For example, Justin calls Jesus "another god."

Moreover, if these men were so "Trinitarian" then you also seem to presuppose such doctrine already existed. One then wonders why the Athanasians themselves did not appeal to the earlier fathers for this already existent doctrine, and not only so, why they spent so much time trying to figure out the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God as well as the Holy Spirit. Such efforts are not necessary for an already existent doctrine.

It appears to me that you have an imaginary history of your own making rather than the one that actually occurred.

 

[DM]

Response to evanman

Evanman . . .

If "Dispensationalism is not plainly taught" . . . then shouldn't preaching it from the pulpit as "Truth" be wrong?

Which is to say, that when a doctrine that isn't "plainly taught" is presented in a church sermon as though it's self-evident, isn't this decieving to the 'young' believers?

Moreover, how many Christians can honestly say (and I would count myself among them), that when they heard the message of salvation and understood of their need to repent . . . they didn't have any concept of the Trinity at that time? Was their (my) salvation then, "temporary" or "partial", or "initial"? To the extent that, once hearing the doctrine of the Trinity after the fact, and grasping the implications that if they don't believe it they're not saved . . . would such a person (myself) suddenly lose salvation?

Show me in Scripture please (keep it to two or three verses) where there is a clear tie-in to salvation, and belief in the Trinity.

Thanks in advance.

Peace and JOY in Him.
David

 

[Adams son]

Re: Response to evanman

Evanman . . .

If "Dispensationalism is not plainly taught" . . . then shouldn't preaching it from the pulpit as "Truth" be wrong?

Which is to say, that when a doctrine that isn't "plainly taught" is presented in a church sermon as though it's self-evident, isn't this decieving to the 'young' believers?

Moreover, how many Christians can honestly say (and I would count myself among them), that when they heard the message of salvation and understood of their need to repent . . . they didn't have any concept of the Trinity at that time? Was their (my) salvation then, "temporary" or "partial", or "initial"? To the extent that, once hearing the doctrine of the Trinity after the fact, and grasping the implications that if they don't believe it they're not saved . . . would such a person (myself) suddenly lose salvation?

Show me in Scripture please (keep it to two or three verses) where there is a clear tie-in to salvation, and belief in the Trinity.

Thanks in advance.

Peace and JOY in Him.
David

Seems to me that would be rather difficult since a three person God is never once identified in the Bible.

 

[evanman]

I've never heard Dispensationalism taught from any pulpit.

We declare to people the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Part of this message is that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, who is God. It is a lie to denigh the Father and the Son!

 

[Free]

I think that salvation is clearly tied to belief in the deity of Christ and the argument could be made that the Trinity is just an extention of that. THe real question is: Can we make God out to be whatever we want, ignoring what he has revealed of himself in Scripture, and be saved?

 

[Adams son]

I think that salvation is clearly tied to belief in the deity of Christ and the argument could be made that the Trinity is just an extention of that. THe real question is: Can we make God out to be whatever we want, ignoring what he has revealed of himself in Scripture, and be saved?

1. Our perspectives of God is not making him to be anything. God is not a product of our imaginations unless your god is an image, an image in your mind. Your perspective of me is surely going to be distorted and inaccurate. It will not change who I am and your ability to recognize that I exist and your ability to communicate with me. The same is true of us and God. Do you claim your perspective of God and the image you have in your mind of God is totally and precisely accurate?

2. Your statement "ignoring what he has revealed of himself in Scripture" makes the assumption that God has revealed himself as a three person being. I have yet to find a shred of evidence for a three person God identified anywhere in the Bible. I have found lots of evidence that people imagine a three person God back into the Bible.

 

[Free]

Adams son,

Answer to #1:

I don't know what your point is.

Answer to #2:

Your statements make the assumption that God hasn't revealed himself as one God with a sense of threeness. I have yet to find a shred of evidence against the threeness in the oneness of God. I have found lots of evidence that people read their erroneous doctrinal presuppositions of God's Oneness back into the Bible.

 

[Adams son]

Adams son,

Answer to #1:

I don't know what your point is.

You do not need to have a perfect perspective of someone to know them. Indeed no one will have a perfect perspective of anyone. Hence the notion that adherence to the Trinity doctrine as a requirement for salvation is quite ridiculous even if it was true, which it isn't - but that is beside the point. It is like saying that if you can't describe the picture on my driver's license perfectly then you can't know me. We are saved by knowing God through his Son relationally. We are not saved by knowing some things about God. I knew my wife before I knew myriads of things about her. The entire premise Trinitarians promote here is childishly ridiculous and remarkably shortsighted and a denial that this business of adherence to the Trinity was nothing a a manipulative means to control the masses against Arianism in the fourth and fifth century Roman empire. Read your history.

Answer to #2:

Your statements make the assumption that God hasn't revealed himself as one God with a sense of threeness. I have yet to find a shred of evidence against the threeness in the oneness of God.

What a ridiculous assertion. You are essentially implying that something is true unless someone proves it is not. I think God is three and a half in one. There. Now go find a shred of evidence in the Bible that he is not three and a half in one. have fun.

Show me where the Bible describes a three person God without me having to resort to imagining your doctrine back into the text. You cannot do it. The Bible nowhere identifies a three person God. This three person God is a complete invention that you have to imagine back into the Bible that never mentions such a god.

I have found lots of evidence that people read their erroneous doctrinal presuppositions of God's Oneness back into the Bible.

As Trinitarians do constantly.....

....and then deny in their own blindness that they do such a thing.

Example:

1. Trinitarians try to tell everyone that the US and OUR group of Genesis 1:26-27 is necessarily Elohim (God). There is absolutely NOTHING in the context which suggests this. All we can surmise is that God is speaking on behalf of a group to which he belongs.

2. Trinitarians pitifully try to tell everyone that the US and OUR group of Genesis 1:26-27 is exactly three persons, no more, no less. There is absolutely NOTHING in the context which suggest how many people belong to the US and OUR group of that verse.

3. Trinitarians completely ignore the very very serious problem that Genesis 3:22 presents to their interpretation of the US and OUR passages. It speaks of someone that is "ONE of US." Who is that "one" who is OF "Us"? It cannot be ANY one of the three persons of the Trinity since that ONE has a relational knowledge of both good and evil, something which God cannot have since he knows no sin or evil.

But hey Trinitarians don't read their preconceptions into the Bible anywhere do they? Get real.

 

[Free]

Adams son,

We are saved by knowing God through his Son relationally. We are not saved by knowing some things about God.

That is not entirely true. We are saved through relationship with God's Son, but who Christ is is of utmost importance. Leaving the Trinity aside for a moment, one must still affirm Jesus' deity in order to be saved. I am not the one arguing that one must necessarily believe in the Trinity in order to be saved, I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet.

Having said that, Jesus, the Son, is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. This distinction is drawn throughout the whole of the NT.

What if I argued that to believe that God is not, in nature, who he has revealed himself to be in Scripture, is to believe in a different "God" altogether?

The entire premise Trinitarians promote here is childishly ridiculous and remarkably shortsighted and a denial that this business of adherence to the Trinity was nothing a a manipulative means to control the masses against Arianism in the fourth and fifth century Roman empire. Read your history.

I have read history and your version is awefully onesided.

What a ridiculous assertion. You are essentially implying that something is true unless someone proves it is not.

lol. What is so ridiculous about it? Throughout all of your posts you make the assumption that God hasn't revealed himself "as a three person being". I was simply following your same line of arguing. Perhaps you would prefer it if I stated "I have yet to find a shred of evidence for a one person God identified anywhere in the Bible;" or "I have yet to find a shred of evidence for the Oneness doctrine of God identified anywhere in the Bible."

You are doing all the things that you are accusing trinitarians of doing. I was merely trying to point out your hypocrisy.

1. Trinitarians try to tell everyone that the US and OUR group of Genesis 1:26-27 is necessarily Elohim (God). There is absolutely NOTHING in the context which suggests this. All we can surmise is that God is speaking on behalf of a group to which he belongs.

Nothing in the context except that God clearly states "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" which is followed by "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him."

Do you not notice that God says "us" and "our" (plural) in reference to his "image" in verse 26 and that verse 27 clearly states man was made in "His own" (singular), that is, God's "image"? That implies that there is more than one that bears God's image, his likeness, and that man was made in the image of the one God. This affirms God's plurality of persons as well as God's singularity, that is, he is the only God.

I could also argue, although I admit it is much weaker, that since God said "Let us make man in our image," that those who he was speaking to were also able to "make," or create.

Regardless, your only way out is to read something into the Scipture which isn't there, or anywhere in all of Scripture, namely, that angels are also made in God's image.

Gen. 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

2. Trinitarians pitifully try to tell everyone that the US and OUR group of Genesis 1:26-27 is exactly three persons, no more, no less. There is absolutely NOTHING in the context which suggest how many people belong to the US and OUR group of that verse.

While you are quite correct, it is quite evident from the verse that there is certainly more than one. :-D

3. Trinitarians completely ignore the very very serious problem that Genesis 3:22 presents to their interpretation of the US and OUR passages. It speaks of someone that is "ONE of US." Who is that "one" who is OF "Us"? It cannot be ANY one of the three persons of the Trinity since that ONE has a relational knowledge of both good and evil, something which God cannot have since he knows no sin or evil.

Gen. 3:22, "22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the R91 tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- "

Not sure what your point is since it is God himself who uses "us," which would necessarily include himself. If this, for some reason, poses a serious problem for trinitarians, it poses just as serious a problem for Oneness, since, by your own admonition, it cannot be in reference to God.

But hey Trinitarians don't read their preconceptions into the Bible anywhere do they? Get real.

No more than Oneness. :-D

 

[Adams son]

Adams son,

We are saved by knowing God through his Son relationally. We are not saved by knowing some things about God.

That is not entirely true. We are saved through relationship with God's Son, but who Christ is is of utmost importance. Leaving the Trinity aside for a moment, one must still affirm Jesus' deity in order to be saved. I am not the one arguing that one must necessarily believe in the Trinity in order to be saved, I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet.

Having said that, Jesus, the Son, is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. This distinction is drawn throughout the whole of the NT.

What if I argued that to believe that God is not, in nature, who he has revealed himself to be in Scripture, is to believe in a different "God" altogether?

[quote:ef615]The entire premise Trinitarians promote here is childishly ridiculous and remarkably shortsighted and a denial that this business of adherence to the Trinity was nothing a a manipulative means to control the masses against Arianism in the fourth and fifth century Roman empire. Read your history.

I have read history and your version is awefully onesided.

What a ridiculous assertion. You are essentially implying that something is true unless someone proves it is not.

lol. What is so ridiculous about it? Throughout all of your posts you make the assumption that God hasn't revealed himself "as a three person being". I was simply following your same line of arguing. Perhaps you would prefer it if I stated "I have yet to find a shred of evidence for a one person God identified anywhere in the Bible;" or "I have yet to find a shred of evidence for the Oneness doctrine of God identified anywhere in the Bible."

You are doing all the things that you are accusing trinitarians of doing. I was merely trying to point out your hypocrisy.

1. Trinitarians try to tell everyone that the US and OUR group of Genesis 1:26-27 is necessarily Elohim (God). There is absolutely NOTHING in the context which suggests this. All we can surmise is that God is speaking on behalf of a group to which he belongs.

Nothing in the context except that God clearly states "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" which is followed by "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him."

Do you not notice that God says "us" and "our" (plural) in reference to his "image" in verse 26 and that verse 27 clearly states man was made in "His own" (singular), that is, God's "image"? That implies that there is more than one that bears God's image, his likeness, and that man was made in the image of the one God. This affirms God's plurality of persons as well as God's singularity, that is, he is the only God.

I could also argue, although I admit it is much weaker, that since God said "Let us make man in our image," that those who he was speaking to were also able to "make," or create.

Regardless, your only way out is to read something into the Scipture which isn't there, or anywhere in all of Scripture, namely, that angels are also made in God's image.

Gen. 9:6, "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

2. Trinitarians pitifully try to tell everyone that the US and OUR group of Genesis 1:26-27 is exactly three persons, no more, no less. There is absolutely NOTHING in the context which suggest how many people belong to the US and OUR group of that verse.

While you are quite correct, it is quite evident from the verse that there is certainly more than one. :-D

3. Trinitarians completely ignore the very very serious problem that Genesis 3:22 presents to their interpretation of the US and OUR passages. It speaks of someone that is "ONE of US." Who is that "one" who is OF "Us"? It cannot be ANY one of the three persons of the Trinity since that ONE has a relational knowledge of both good and evil, something which God cannot have since he knows no sin or evil.

Gen. 3:22, "22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the R91 tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- "

Not sure what your point is since it is God himself who uses "us," which would necessarily include himself. If this, for some reason, poses a serious problem for trinitarians, it poses just as serious a problem for Oneness, since, by your own admonition, it cannot be in reference to God.

But hey Trinitarians don't read their preconceptions into the Bible anywhere do they? Get real.

No more than Oneness. :-D[/quote:ef615]

You might want to start over and try again. I am not Oneness.