A question for Trinitarians

[Rulkiewicz]

In my opinion, the dogma of the Trinity stems from man trying to connect the dots to understand God. Lean not unto thy own understanding!

They see the bible speaking of One God, and three "forms" (or persons, as Trinitarians dub them) of God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and they try to make sense of it.

The very definition of the Trinity obscure: Three persons of God, existing within the Godhead, they're all co-equal and co-eternal.

The first thing that sticks out to me (or anyone) is that in a family hierarchy, the father creates the son, Father: 1st, Son, 2nd. That's the way it is.

The SOLE purpose of those titles are to explain something chronological!

Now, why would scripture give them (remember, they're co-equal and co-eternal- meaning neither one of the ever had a beginning) titles that refer strictly to chronology?

The SON could not have pre-existed because the very word reflects "creation".

The "Son" was not part of the picture until Luke 1:35. But only in reference to the "Word" in John: the idea of this plan of salvation was with God from the begining.

One Lord, one name: Jesus.

[complete]

In my opinion, the dogma of the Trinity stems from man trying to connect the dots to understand God. Lean not unto thy own understanding!

They see the bible speaking of One God, and three "forms" (or persons, as Trinitarians dub them) of God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and they try to make sense of it.

The very definition of the Trinity obscure: Three persons of God, existing within the Godhead, they're all co-equal and co-eternal.

The first thing that sticks out to me (or anyone) is that in a family hierarchy, the father creates the son, Father: 1st, Son, 2nd. That's the way it is.

The SOLE purpose of those titles are to explain something chronological!

Now, why would scripture give them (remember, they're co-equal and co-eternal- meaning neither one of the ever had a beginning) titles that refer strictly to chronology?

The SON could not have pre-existed because the very word reflects "creation".

The "Son" was not part of the picture until Luke 1:35. But only in reference to the "Word" in John: the idea of this plan of salvation was with God from the begining.

One Lord, one name: Jesus.

Good evening Rulkiewicz,



My first reaction would be to answer each of your points but before I reconsider that reaction please read the following statement:



The Bible will definitely prove, yet again, that God's truth must be established on the basis of the exegesis of the text (Holy Scripture), and that everyone must be very careful to examine their traditions in that light.


Do you agree with that statement?

[Rulkiewicz]

Good evening Rulkiewicz,



My first reaction would be to answer each of your points but before I reconsider that reaction please read the following statement:



The Bible will definitely prove, yet again, that God's truth must be established on the basis of the exegesis of the text (Holy Scripture), and that everyone must be very careful to examine their traditions in that light.


Do you agree with that statement?


If you mean the bible as a whole, and not bits and pieces here and there? Yes. God's word cannot return void, it cannot contradict itself.

[KJammer]

If you mean the bible as a whole, and not bits and pieces here and there? Yes. God's word cannot return void, it cannot contradict itself.

Amen Rulk, and Trinitarians cannot do that.

[justme]

But isn't that how the average trinitarian sees it? I'm not talking about the theologian that's been to 4 years of school but the average church goer on the street. They have been indoctrinated by holly wood and others that basically establish God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as some Greece trilogy.
I have a Time magazine that stated that the Catholic church was attempting to make Mary the fourth person of the trinity and that they had several backers. Know how perverted is that. In the beginning God made man, know man is returning the favor.