Trinity or not.

Originally posted by tragic mulatto
[B]Just Here to say That Jesus understood himself to be God and that Other books of the Bible (OT and NT) also prove that Jesus is God.

Jesus said: ".. unless you believe that I am (ego eimi, greek) , you shall die in your sins (John 8:24). . It simply reads "... unless you believe that I am..." He told the Jews, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am (ego eimi) " (John 8:28).

An example of when Jesus called Himself "I Am" is when the Jews said to Jesus: " You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? ' Jesus said to them 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM (Greek: ego eimi) . Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him' ' (John 8:57-59). They wanted to kill Jesus for he presumption of that claim to deity. The OTwas clear. The prescribed penalty for blasphemy was to be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:16) . Thats exsatly what they were going to do to Jesus.

Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God.

The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English.

Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one.

Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God.

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.).

It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said, literally, “Not I am, Lord” (Matt. 26:22 and 25). No one would say that the disciples were trying to deny that they were God because they were using the phrase “Not I am.” The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God.

The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge.

Verse 56 is accurately translated in the King James Version, which says:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

This verse says that Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ, which is normally considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquerors the earth and sets up his kingdom. That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham:

“For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10).

Abraham looked for a city that is still future, yet the Bible says Abraham “saw” it. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future?

Abraham “saw” the Day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the Day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham.

Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.

To say that Jesus is “before” him is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4).

In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

🙂

Originally posted by Jury
Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God.

The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge.

In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God’s “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

🙂

Originally posted by tragic mulatto
Psalm 110:1 shows a dialogue between God and God. David writes, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Jesus uses this quite nicely against the Pharisees when he asks them how this could be David’s Lord and yet his son at the same time. The Messiah will be of the tribe of Judah, David’s son, yet David’s Lord. The wording here must also be noted. A plain translation says “Yahweh said to my Adonai…” The word “Yahweh” is God’s name, literally stated “I am.” Each time the designation Yahweh is used in the Bible through the Old Testament it refers to the “ I AM”. The word “Adonai” is used in designating God’s supreme position as “Lord and ruler.” So Yahweh is speaking to Adonai. Basically God speaking to God.

🙂 Nice try. Let's see.

Psalm 110:1

The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated “my lord” is adoni (pronounced “Adon nee”) in the standard Hebrew texts. This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God. Unfortunately, most Hebrew concordances and lexicons give only root words, not the word that actually occurs in the Hebrew text. This is one reason why biblical research done by people using only tools such as a Strong’s Concordance will often be limited. While this usually does not affect the interpretation of the text, sometimes it makes a great deal of difference, such as in Psalm 110:1. Focus on the Kingdom reports:

The Bible in Psalm 110:1 actually gives the Messiah the title that never describes God. The word is adoni and in all of its 195 occurrences in the Old Testament it means a superior who is human (or occasionally angelic), created and not God. So Psalm 110:1 presents the clearest evidence that the Messiah is not God, but a supremely exalted man.

The difference between adon (the root word), adoni (“lord,” always used of men or angels) and adonai (which is used of God and sometimes written adonay) is critical to the understanding of Psalm 110:1. The Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs (BDB), considered by many to be the best available, makes the distinction between these words. Note how in BDB the word adoni refers to “lords” that are not God, while another word, adonai, refers to God:

(1) Reference to men: my lord, my master: (adoni)

(a) master: Ex. 21:5 (Covenant code) Gen. 24:12+, 44:5 (J, 20t.), 1 Sam. 30:13 and 15; 2 Kings 5:3, 20 and 22; 6:15;

(b) husband: Gen. 18:12 (J);

(c) prophet: 1 Kings 18:7 and 13; 2 Kings 2:19; 4:16 and 28; 6:5; 8:5;

(d) prince: Gen. 42:10 (E), Gen. 23:6,11 and 15 (P), Gen 43:20; 44:18+ ; 47:18, + (J, 12t.); Judges. 4:18;

(e) king: 1 Sam. 22:12+ (S&K 75t.);

(f) father: Gen. 31:5 (E);

(g) Moses: Ex. 32:22; Num. 11:28; 12:11; 32:26 and 27 (J); Num. 36:2 (2x) (P);

(h) priest: 1 Sam. 1:15 and 26 (2x);

(i) theophanic angel [an angel representing God]: Josh. 5:14; Judges. 6:13;

(j) captain: 2 Sam. 11:11;

(k) general recognition of superiority: Gen. 24:18; 32:5+; 33:8+; 44:7+ (J 13t.), Ruth 2:13; 1 Sam. 25:24+ (15t.).

(2) Reference to God: [adonai]. Notice that when the word refers to God, it changes from when it refers to men. The vowel under the “n” (the second letter from the left) has changed.

In the above definition, adoni and adonai have the same root, adon, which is the word listed in the concordances and most lexicons. However, the exact words used are different. Adoni, the word used in Psalm 110:1, is never used of God. It is always used of a human or angelic superior. The fact that the Hebrew text uses the word adoni of the Messiah in Psalm 110 is very strong proof that he is not God. If the Messiah was to be God, then the word adonai would have been used. This distinction between adoni (a lord) and adonai (the Lord, God) holds even when God shows up in human form. In Genesis 18:3, Abraham addresses God who was “disguised” as a human, but the text uses adonai.

Scholars recognize that there is a distinction between the words adoni and adonai, and that these distinctions are important. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes:

The form ADONI (“my lord”), a royal title (1 Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI (“my Lord”) used of Yahweh.

There are several uses of adonai that refer to angels or men, giving them an elevated status, but not indicating that the speaker believed they were God. This is in keeping with the language as a whole. Studies of words like Elohim show that it is also occasionally used of humans who have elevated status. Examples of adonai referring to humans include Genesis 19:18 and 24:9, 39:2. In contrast to adonai being used occasionally of men, there is no time when adoni is used of God. Men may be elevated, but God is never lowered.

The following 148 verses contain 166 uses of the word (adoni) and every one of them either refers to a human lord or an angel. None refers to God: Gen. 23:6, 11,15; 24:12(2x),14,18,27(3x),35,36,37,39,42,44,48(2x),49,65; 31:35; 33:8,13,14(2x),15; 39:8; 42:10; 43:20; 44:5,7,18(2x),19,20,22,24; 47:18(2x),25; Ex. 21:5; 32:22; Num. 11:28; 12:11; 32:25,27; 36:2; Josh. 5:14; 10:1,3; Jdgs. 1:5,6,7; 4:18; 6:13; Ruth 2:13; 1 Sam. 1:15,26(2x); 22:12; 24:8; 25:24,25(2x),26(2x),27,28,29,31,41; 26:17,18,19; 29:8; 30:13,15 ; 2 Sam. 1:10; 3:21; 9:11; 11:11; 13:32,33; 14:9,12,15,17(2x),18,19(2x),22; 15:15,21(2x); 16:4,9; 18:31,32; 19:19(2x),20,26,27,30,35,37; 24:3,21,22; 1 Ki. 1:13,17,18,20(2x),21,24,27(2x),31,36,37(2x); 2:38; 3:17,26; 18:7,10; 20:4; 2 Ki. 2:19; 4:16,28; 5:3,18,20,22; 6:5,12,15,26; 8:5,12; 10:9; 18:23,24,27; 1 Chr. 21:3(2x),23; 2 Chron. 2:14,15; Isa. 36:8,9,12; Jer. 37:20; 38:9; Dan. 1:10; 10:16,17(2x),19; 12:8; Zech. 1:9; 4:4,5,13; 6:4.

The following 24 uses can be found under; [l’adoni], “to my Lord.” While we in English separate the preposition from the noun or verb following, in Hebrew the preposition is attached directly to the word. Gen. 24:3,54,56; 32:5,6,19; 44:9,16,33; 1 Sam. 24:7; 25:27,28,30,31; 2 Sam. 4:8; 19:29; 1 Kings. 1:2; 18:13; 20:9; 1 Chron. 21:3; Ps. 110:1. All these refer to human lords, not God.

The following 6 references can be found under [v’adoni]: Gen. 18:12; Num. 36:2; 2 Sam. 11:11; 14:20; 19:28; 24:3.

The following reference can be found under [m_adoni]: Gen. 47:18.

Students of Hebrew know that the original text was written in an “unpointed” form, i.e., without the dots, dashes and marks that are now the written vowels. Thus some scholars may point out that since the vowel points of the Hebrew text were added later, the rabbis could have been mistaken. It should be pointed out, however, that the two Hebrew words, adonai and adoni, even though written the same in unpointed text, sound different when pronounced. This is not unusual in a language. “Read” and “read” are spelled the same, but one can be pronounced “red,” as in “I read the book yesterday,” while the other is pronounced “reed,” as in “Please read the book to me.” The correct way to place the vowels in the text would have been preserved in the oral tradition of the Jews. Thus when the text was finally written with the vowels it would have been written as it was always pronounced.

Further evidence that the Jews always thought that the word in Psalm 110:1 referred to a human Messiah and not God come to earth is given in the Greek text, both in the Septuagint and in quotations in the New Testament. It is important to remember that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, was made about 250 BC, long before the Trinitarian debates started. Yet the Septuagint translation is clearly supportive of Psalm 110:1 referring to a human lord, not God. It translates adoni as ho kurios mou.

The translators of the LXX [the Septuagint] in the 3rd century BC attest to a careful distinction between the forms of adon used for divine and human reference by translating adoni as ho kurios mou, “my lord.”

When Psalm 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament the same truth about the human lordship of the Messiah is preserved:

The New Testament, when it quotes Psalm 110:1, renders l’adoni as “to my lord” (to kurio mou). But it renders adonai ([Psalm 110] v. 5 and very often elsewhere) as “the Lord” (kurios). This proves that the difference between adonai and adoni was recognized and reported in Greek long before the Masoretic vowel points fixed the ancient, oral tradition permanently in writing.

It is interesting that scholars have often not paid close attention to the text of Psalm 110 or the places it is quoted in the New Testament, and have stated that it shows that Christ must have been God. The well-known Smith’s Bible Dictionary contains an article on “Son of God,” written by Ezra Abbot. He writes:

Accordingly we find that, after the Ascension, the Apostles labored to bring the Jews to acknowledge that Jesus was not only the Christ, but was also a Divine Person, even the Lord Jehovah. Thus, for example, St. Peter…[Abbot goes on to say how Peter said that God had made Jesus “both Lord and Christ.”]

Abbot’s conclusion is faulty because he did not pay attention to the exact wording of the Hebrew text. Even scholars who contributed to Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible apparently agree, because there is a footnote after the above quotation that corrects it. The footnote states:

In ascribing to St. Peter the remarkable proposition that “God hath made Jesus JEHOVAH,” the writer of the article appears to have overlooked the fact that kurion (“Lord”) in Acts 2:36 refers to to kurio mou (“my Lord”) in verse 34, quoted from Ps 110:1, where the Hebrew correspondent is not Jehovah but adon, the common word for “lord” or “master.” St. Peters meaning here may be illustrated by his language elsewhere; see Acts 5:31 [where Peter calls Jesus a “prince,” etc.].

The footnote is quite correct, for the word in Psalm 110 is the word for a “lord” or “master” and not God. Thus Psalm 110:1 gives us very clear evidence that the expected Messiah of God was not going to be God himself, but a created being. The Jews listening to Peter on the Day of Pentecost would clearly see the correlation in Peter’s teaching that Jesus was a “man approved of God” (v. 22 - KJV), and a created being, the “my lord” of Psalm 110:1 which Peter quoted just shortly thereafter (v. 34). The use of adoni in the first verse of Psalm 110:1 makes it very clear that the Jews were not expecting their Messiah to be God, but were expecting a human “lord.”

Originally posted by tragic mulatto
Isaiah 9:6

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

Isaiah 9:6

“And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace….” (NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trinitarians should admit that this verse is translated improperly just from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture. Indeed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is the “Everlasting Father.” It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if this verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated “everlasting” is actually “age,” and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called “father of the [coming] age.”

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.” For example, because Jabal was the first one to live in a tent and raise livestock, the Bible says, “he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock” (Gen. 4:20). Furthermore, because Jubal was the first inventor of musical instruments, he is called, “the father of all who play the harp and flute” (Gen. 4:21). Scripture is not using “father” in the sense of literal father or ancestor in these verses, because both these men were descendants of Cain, and all their descendants died in the Flood. “Father” was being used in the cultural understanding of either one who was the first to do something or someone who was important in some way. Because the Messiah will be the one to establish the age to come, raise the dead into it, and rule over it, he is called “the father of the coming age.”

The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles.

A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be.

The phrase translated “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6 in the NIV in the Hebrew, el gibbor. That very phrase, in the plural form, is used Ezekiel 32:21 where dead “heroes” and mighty men are said, by the figure of speech personification, to speak to others. The phrase in Ezekiel is translated “mighty leaders” in the NIV, and “the strong among the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. The Hebrew phrase, when used in the singular, can refer to one “mighty leader” just as when used in the plural it can refer to many “mighty leaders.”

The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God’s appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when “there will be no more gloom for those in distress.” All war and death will cease, and “every warrior’s boot…will be destined for burning” (v. 5). How will this come to pass? The chapter goes on: “for to us a child is born and to us a son is given” (v. 6). There is no hint that this child will be “God,” and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an “incarnation.” For them, the Messiah was going to be a man anointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course Yahweh, their eternal God, could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be: “the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace.” Furthermore, “he will reign on David’s throne (v. 7), which could never be said of God. God could never sit on David’s throne. But God’s Messiah, “the Son of David,” could (Matt. 9:27, et al). Thus, a study of the verse in its context reveals that it does not refer to the Trinity at all, but to the Messiah, the son of David and the Son of God.

Originally posted by tragic mulatto
Jeremiah 23:5-6. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

The Messiah will be “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” This title is a title given to God literally as “Yahweh Tsidkenu.” The Messiah is not only raised up by God but called "Yahweh is Righteousness". The Messiah is Yahweh. The Messiah is God by nature.

(these are probaly my only posts here)

Jeremiah 23:6
This is the name by which he will be called…the Lord our Righteousness. (NIV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When something is “called” a certain name, that does not mean that it is literally what it is called. Jerusalem is also called “the Lord our Righteousness,” and Jerusalem is obviously not God (Jer. 33:16). So, calling something “the Lord our Righteousness” does not make it God. Abraham called the mountain on which he was about to sacrifice Isaac “the Lord will provide,” and no one would believe that the mountain was Yahweh. Similarly, no one would believe an altar was Yahweh, even if Moses called it that: “Moses built an altar and called it ‘the Lord is my Banner’” (Ex. 17:15). Later, Gideon built an altar and called it Yahweh: “So Gideon built an altar to the Lord there and called it ‘The Lord is Peace.’ To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites” (Judges 6:24). These verses prove conclusively that just because something is called Yahweh, that does not make it Yahweh.

The Messiah will be called (not will be) “the Lord our Righteousness” because God Almighty will work His righteousness through His anointed one, Jesus the Christ. The city of Jerusalem will also be called “the Lord our Righteousness” because God will work His righteousness there, and that righteousness will reach over the entire world.

to put it plain and simple: the jews used Adonai for god the singulare word of Adonai is Adoni and it was used to refer to distingueshed persons.
Adonai was used by the jews as a "substitute" for yhweh which was considered sinful to use

Yep....wasn't allowed to say YWHW...

Every being has a spirit. Angels/demons, God, and humans are the three different kinds of spirits in existence. Angels are spirits of lesser power than God and human's spirit, or the soul of a human is bound to the flesh and is therefore the weakest.

God, the Father is the pureness of the Holy Spirit and commands it. Jesus, though human flesh does not have a human spirit but rather the Holy Spirit in flesh. Therefore, Jesus is tempted by his flesh, but the Holy Spirit of God from whom he draws strength, power, and glory through prayer and meditation is able to overcome temptation and sin. Jesus is therefore both human and divine, the likeness of his Father.

I may expand on this theory of the Trinity and the three kinds of spirits later, but I will leave at this for now. I was wondering if anyway can disclaim any of this using Christian doctrine.

To the Jews the name of god is "El".............it's the pronoun that gives it the male or female meaning..................EL...........that's IT!

Thought I'd point out, for all the pro trinity as a singular entity. The Council at Nicaea decided that the Christian belief was that they were a singular entity with three representations. This occurred at 325 AD. Up until this time there was debate over it. My opinion is that if it took 325 years to decide that, it is entirely possible that they were wrong, especially since God didn't tell them anything since Christ left. Also, while they decided this, it wasn't unanimous, although rather close to. So Catholics should believe it is the accurate way to believe in the Trinity, everyone else is just agreeing with them after they decided the Catholics weren't always right, seems stupid to me. Lastly it seems rather stupid to pray to yourself, and seems to be a lie or at the very least a misleading behavior. So saying the trinity are a singular entity is stating that Christ is at the very least an often misleading individual.

Me as a Christian and a believer, the holy trinity is still one of the most interesting topics in the Bible, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit in one, and majority of so called Christians don't believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Me as a Christian and a believer, the holy trinity is still one of the most interesting topics in the Bible, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit in one, and majority of so called Christians don't believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Luke 22: 42
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Does the single entity Trinity then have differing wills? Does the single entity Trinity require titles and such when addressing themself? These questions just barely scratch the ludicrous nature of Trinitarian Doctrine, a belief that began ~300 years after Christ's death, at the behest of a secular leader and not God.

Why people don't understand it? Trinitarians themselves say NOBODY UNDERSTANDS TRINITY. Why bother about that?

This discussion would be better if we let Trinitarians out there unanimously define what Trinity really is.

PS: Avoid posting the whole Trinity books and stuff. Point out a point and let's discuss. 🙂

Originally posted by Jury
Why people don't understand it? Trinitarians themselves say NOBODY UNDERSTANDS TRINITY. Why bother about that?

One wonders why God chose to be so vague on the subject.

The Hindu are more more clear on the nature of the universe, including the gods, being part of something greater.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
One wonders why God chose to be so vague on the subject.

The Hindu are more more clear on the nature of the universe, including the gods, being part of something greater.

Since the Bible says:

since what may be known about God is plain to them,
because God has made it plain to them.
Romans 1:19, NIV

But what do people do?

For although they knew God,
they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,
but their thinking become futile
and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claim to be wise they became fools
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for images to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Romans 1:21-22, NIV

And we all know who they are. 🙂

Originally posted by the Darkone
and majority of so called Christians don't believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

That's crap. That would mean they aren't christians. Unless you're trying to condemn Catholocism while reamining relevant to the words of christs that followed the reformation. Bottom line, if you consider yourself a christian, then you have to believe that Jesus is god. Otherwise, you're wasting you time. And to imply anything else is a lie.

So how should we define "Christian" then?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The catholic Trinity cult is based on the Verses in John 1.1 which goes something like "and word is GOD".

But there are numerous occasions where Jesus prays to his father, this plus the fact that no one can see god and live tends to contradict this direction of though.

What do you all think?

1 John 5:7
For there are Three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are one.

God is Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit. This is Who God is. These three "Persons" (i.e. divine Persons) each with their own distinctive wills are (i.e. constitute) one God. Somehow God is three Persons--not three Gods (because that would be polytheism--and yet (still) one God. I know that it seems like a matter of semantics, but the Bible is clear that God is one. To me this is just one of the many mysteries about God that I will have the joy of comprehending "fully" one day when I get to Heaven.