The Trinity is one of mainstream Christianity’s most widely accepted and revered doctrines. The belief that God is three persons coexisting in one being or substance, as the doctrine is often defined, is held by millions of Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox believers alike. What is the truth?
Inside this Bible Study aid booklet:
-- Is the Trinity Biblical?
-- The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
-- How Is God Revealed in the Bible?
-- Did Jesus Christ Claim to Be God?
-- Jesus Christ's Submission to the Father
-- How Is God One?
-- Elohim: The Plurality of God
-- Is the Holy Spirit a Person?
-- Does Matthew 28:19 Prove the Trinity?
-- Why the Holy Spirit Is Sometimes Incorrectly Referred to as "He" and "Him"
-- What About Passages That "Prove" the Trinity?
-- The Holy Spirit: God's Transforming Power
-- How to Stir Up God's Spirit
-- God's Nature and Character
-- God's Purpose for You
-- The God Family
Trinity is false
There is NO TRINITY
Trinity is real!
1 John 5:7 KJV For there are three who bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the holy spirit: and these three are one. I don't understand how they missed this verse but it clearly refers to the trinity
assumptions based on Greek philosophy
I have a hard time reading through books that clearly make jumps in logic, redefine terms, and basically make claims without proof. having born through chapter after after chapter, I gave this book a low score not because of where I disagree but because it was poorly supported on every postulate. A bit of Greek philosophy, Mysticism and bait and switch.
Example. Using a dream such as Revelation to prove a point... A character that is "like a son of man" is supposed proof of being Jesus just because Son of Man was a favorite title ascribed by Jesus for himself...
What is wrong with this? What about Ezekiel? God gave the title to the prophet Ezekiel too.
What else is wrong with this assumption - "Like a son of man" cannot to be equated with "the son of man" . Like is a term of similitude not equality. Yet the author without further proof follows through with his postulate concluding that the character is Jesus rather than the "Angel" John said brought the message.
These kinds of leaps in a postulate make for bad conclusions. So whether I agree with the conclusion or not I disagree that proof was given.
Other than an exercise in proof texting...and locating errors in the proofs, the book is a waste of my time. The family concept of God, whether bi enity, or tri entity, or innumerable entities, is still a polytheistic concept, not a monotheistic concept. Trying to put a physical and visible to the eye concept on The Holy One (singular) especially with terms and images not in the bible isn't wise. In scripture there is no "god the son" and while the "breath of God is both neutral as in "it" and feminine as in the Hebrew form of "it"... if it a force from God is never called "god the spirit" for God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. God being invisible and intangible can only be seen with the inner eye... not by sight, but by faith in action, the living torah. Did not John in his gospel say " the torahman came to be infused with grace and truth and tabernacled among us"? The torah made living or "love in action" is the only visible portrayal of God we can see.
Time would be better spent learning to read Hebrew and Greek, so one is learning to read the scriptures ones self rather than the dogma of human philosophies and traditions.