Best book against the trinity I've seen yet
Jack
Robert Morey, you probably think you have a good answer to
non-Trinitarians. Think again! The new book from TellWay Publishing
entitled "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" is a serious challenge to
Trinitarian faith. While pro-Trinity books present lopsided
discussions on the subject, this book presents a balanced presentation
of both sides. But, as one reviewer of this book said, "Be careful!
This book is a powerful attack on Trinitarian faith. The arguments
don't come from scholars, theologians or the opinions of Baptist
preachers, they come from God's Word."
It's available at www.tellway-publishing.com
I'd like to hear what some Trinitarians have to say about this
publication as I was very impressed by it's arguments
Cory Briggs
Math.28:19- "Go, (the original Greek is very emphatic, like go!), ye
therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." They are some things worth noting
about the passage: Notice it DOESN'T SAY " baptizing in the names, but
baptize by only one name (authority), not 3. Also, in the original Father,
Son, Holy Spirit all singular, not plural. (Remember, Trinity means
"tri-unity-perfect unity between One God and 3 Persons). The construct of
that passage puts the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on equal footing.
Are you a modalist or a oneness pentecostal person? Cor
"Jack" <reviewb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da5204a3.02070...@posting.google.com...
Jack
non-Trinitarians. Think again!"
Yes, Holt's book deals with your argument at Matt 28:19,20 and that
this is what you have to offer as your first argument suggests to me
you may not be prepared for much of a discussion on this subject. I'm
not answering yours or anyone else's questions. I simply pointed you
to a book I just read
that I thought covered the material in an excellent manner. You can
take it from there.
But I will say, in your presenting such an elementary argument for the
trinity, you may simply be unfamiliar with the trinity debate and
depths of the arguments. In fact, are you aware that a number of
Trinitarians don't even reference Matt 28:19,20 as proof of the
Trinity? "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" will enlighten you and
probably presents more scriptures FOR the Trinity than you could. I'm
sure it will enlighten you on the hundreds and hundreds of scriptures
that show Jesus could not be God. You can get it at
www.tellway-publishing.com and I also just saw that Amazon.com has it
too.
Outside of that, I have no interest in debating anyone on this
subject. The information is there and it's up to each person as to
whether he will remain ignorant on the subject. And believe me,
searching Pro-Trinity websites won't educate you as most seem to lack
a common thread...accuracy regarding all of the evidence and issues.
Raymond
The writer of the book you want us to read is by Brian Holt and the back
page says he is a Jehovah's Witness, a CULT member.
The writer of the book you want us to read is by Brian Holt and the back
page says he is a Jehovah's Witness, a CULT member.
You are a funny person, everyone says it is from God's Word, some even put
in It is from ONLY God's Word. Then what do you think scholars do and
theologians do they study Gods word, they comment on God's Word. If the guy
that wrote this book is not a scholar or a theologian, it be a waste of
time, like going to the horse doctor to get your teeth fixed.
Raymond
book at website, back cover shows who is he, and what group he is with, a
cult.
"Jack" <reviewb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da5204a3.02071...@posting.google.com...
Kevin Simonson
news:<uinabgs...@corp.supernews.com>...
=OK lets start with the Bible: Let's go to the Great Commission in
=Math.28:19- "Go, (the original Greek is very emphatic, like go!), ye
=therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father,
=and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." They are some things worth noting
=about the passage: Notice it DOESN'T SAY " baptizing in the names, but
=baptize by only one name (authority), not 3. Also, in the original Father,
=Son, Holy Spirit all singular, not plural. (Remember, Trinity means
="tri-unity-perfect unity between One God and 3 Persons). The construct of
=that passage puts the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on equal footing.
= Are you a modalist or a oneness pentecostal person? Cor
="Jack" <reviewb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
=news:da5204a3.02070...@posting.google.com...
=> If you've read books about the Trinity by Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes or
=> Robert Morey, you probably think you have a good answer to
=> non-Trinitarians. Think again!
It's interesting that Cory referred to the Great Commission in
his attempt to demonstrate the validity of Trinitarianism. Let's as-
sume for the moment that it really does say that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost do have the same name (or the same authority).
Does that necessarily imply that each of them is individually God?
Yes, the passage does seem to put the three on equal footing, but
such appearances can be deceiving. On the Mount of Transfiguration
Peter thought that Moses, Elijah, and Jesus were on equal footing, but
he discovered to his chagrin that they were not. So once again, the
conclusion that the honest observer has to come to regarding the Great
Commission is that there is not enough clear data to warrant the idea
that is central to Evangelical Christianity (if not to traditional
Christianity as a whole).
I can't help but wonder why a doctrine so central to a faith
structure is based on such nebulous reasoning. If God really thought
the Trinity was so important to people who believe, don't you think
God would have spelled it out explicitly?
God talks to Jesus on a regular basis in John's Gospel; God could
clearly have told Jesus, "I am clearly God; I've told you that you are
God; it turns out that the Holy Spirit is also God. Note, however,
that these people are not three gods, but rather the three are just
one God." God didn't say that. God would have made the Trinitarians'
case a lot stronger if He had.
By the way, in case the question about modalism or oneness pente-
costalism gets addressed to me, I _do_ consider myself Christian,
though not traditional Christian. I'm a Latter-day Saint. Mormons
believe Jesus is divine, but we tend to think of God the same way Je-
sus did. Whenever Jesus used the word God He was always referring to
His Father. There's also an interesting piece of LDS theology called
divine investiture of authority. That means that God the Father has
given Jesus the authority to speak for the Father when such speaking
needs to be done. So obviously Latter-day Saints see no need to be-
lieve in the Trinity.
---Kevin Simonson
Reverence the eternal.
Kevin Simonson
news:<agjr50$c8...@rain.i-cable.com>...
=The writer of the book you want us to read is by Brian Holt and the back
=page says he is a Jehovah's Witness, a CULT member.
=
=> If you've read books about the Trinity by Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes or
=> Robert Morey, you probably think you have a good answer to
=> non-Trinitarians. Think again! The new book from TellWay Publishing
=> entitled "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" is a serious challenge to
=> Trinitarian faith.
..........<snip>..........
=> This book is a powerful attack on Trinitarian faith. The arguments
=> don't come from scholars, theologians or the opinions of Baptist
=> preachers, they come from God's Word."
=>
=> It's available at www.tellway-publishing.com
=>
=> I'd like to hear what some Trinitarians have to say about this
=> publication as I was very impressed by it's arguments
=
=The writer of the book you want us to read is by Brian Holt and the back
=page says he is a Jehovah's Witness, a CULT member.
Yes, Raymond, Jehovah's Witnesses (and therefore Brian Holt) are
members of a cult, an offshoot of Christianity, just like Christianity
was originally a cult too, as an offshoot of Judaism, just like Bud-
dhism was a cult as an offshoot of Hinduism. When sociologists see
any faith group that is small compared to the predominant faith group,
they call it a cult. So what? Does it make Christianity less likely
to be a manifestation of God's will, just because it was small while
Judaism was large in Palestine, or while pagan worship was large in
the Roman Empire?
I'd be about the last person in the world to embrace the theology
of the Watchtower organization, but I've got to admit that Jehovah's
Witnesses have a unique solution to the biggest problem that tradi-
tional Christianity has.
Tell me, Raymond, if God really is absolutely omnipotent, abso-
lutely omniscient, and at the same time is all good, then doesn't He
have the power to cause souls to cease to exist, go out of existence
completely? Why then doesn't God cause (according to Evangelicals
vast numbers of) the unsaved to cease to exist? Why doesn't God put
them out of their misery? Why does God let them suffer endlessly when
He could make it stop? What possible good can come from letting them
suffer endlessly?
What is there about God that we can be more sure of than that God
would put these sufferers out of their misery if He could?
Jehovah's Witnesses say that the unsaved _do_ get put out of
their misery, right when they die. Whenever _anyone_ dies, according
to Jehovah's Witnesses, they cease to exist and don't start existing
again until they're ressurrected.
It is not my intent to convince Christians that they should em-
brace the Jehovah's Witnesses' theology because of this observation,
but they need to find _some_ way of reconciling God's absolute omnipo-
tence with His omnibenevolence. At the same time I would like for
people like Raymond to stop name-calling when his brand of Christiani-
ty has more blood on its hands than the Jehovah of the Witnesses ever
had.
=You are a funny person, everyone says it is from God's Word, some even put
=in It is from ONLY God's Word. Then what do you think scholars do and
=theologians do they study Gods word, they comment on God's Word. If the
guy
=that wrote this book is not a scholar or a theologian, it be a waste of
=time, like going to the horse doctor to get your teeth fixed.
So if we want to find out what God's will on a subject is, we
need to rely on a scholar to tell us? Isn't that why the Catholics
kept their adherents from reading the Bible back in the Dark Ages?
Raymond, if your reasoning had been valid back then, we would never
have had a Protestant Reformation. Is that what you want?
If I needed my teeth fixed, and I went to a degreed dentist to
have them fixed, and found him reading his manual, and read over his
shoulder that someone with my symptoms should get treatment X, I'd be
very leary if he recommended treatment Y.
So read Holt's book with an open mind. If he shows places in the
Bible where it shows Jesus didn't believe in the Trinity, then seri-
ously consider them.
By the way, I really have very little use for most theological
scholars. I've been convinced for a long time that theology is a sub-
ject for amateurs. If a powerful angel like Satan was can go astray,
and take a huge fraction of humanity down to hell with him, then why
couldn't a religious scholar take people down there too? In my opi-
nion scholars are valuable for what they can _show_ the laity; the la-
ity should never believe what the scholars say on the basis of the
scholars' authority alone.
Jack
then prefer to stay in the dark when it comes to actual facts.
Raymond earlier gave me a scripture supposedly proving his argument
but it was woefully elementary. Such only shows that he 1.) doesn't
know much about the subject or how we would respond to his argument
and 2.) his attitude here shows he's not really interested in gaining
knowledge of the real issues. He is far from being like those found
at Acts 28:22 who said "But we think it proper to hear from you what
your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect (Christianity) it is
known to us that everywhere it is spoken against."
And Raymond, if you really want a detailed reason for why we believe
Jesus is not God, see the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" that I
recommended earlier. I know it is written by a "cult" member (Brian
Holt) but then again, as Kevin pointed out, so was the New Testament.
Then maybe next time you can bypass the elementary arguments for the
Trinity that many Trinitarians don't even use and get down to the real
issues.
Diane
I read your review of the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" and I
decided to read it myself. It was excellent. I hope to soon hear from
Trinitarians who have read it because I have a hard time seeing how
they will respond to such an overwhelming evidence against Jesus being
anyone other than the Son of God.
Thanks for telling me about it!
reviewb...@yahoo.com (Jack) wrote in message news:<da5204a3.02071...@posting.google.com>...