Nr. 349: The belief that God is triune is developing mathematical, unbiblical and illogical!

Nr. 349:

The belief that God is triune is developing mathematical, unbiblical and illogical!

2 Genesis 20 3 You shall have no other gods before me. Mark 12 29 Jesus answered him, The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.

World's genius Sir Isaac Newton rejected the Trinity

Here a picture that Sir Isaac Newton who rejected the Trinity and that you should do, it is then impossible that three gods can be one God. Had they believed in the Trinity and believe that Jesus is both God and man followed the same mathematical formulas that what they believe. Had all been little good minus in math when this is complete madness to believe in a triune God who has a son who is both God and man

Newton was aware that God is the source of all truth and in accordance with the deep reverence he had for its creator, it seems that he spent more time searching the true God than to discover scientific truths. A survey of all it shows that Newton wrote of about 3.6 million words was only 1 million spent on scientific topics, while about 1.4 million were spent on religious topics. In his writings, Newton dealt a lot with the Trinity. One of his most important contributions was his work An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruption of Scripture in 1754, 27 years after his death. These fonts are locked as far as I know about it and the Latin and the English Church keeps them hidden from everyone when they will be revealed and find out what God's word speaks of these things. Newton referred to earlier ecclesiastical writers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first translations of the Bible contained and proved that the words in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one that supports the Trinity did not exist in the original inspired Greek writings. He showed then how the false reading method had entered the Latin translations, first as a rand note and later in the text. He showed that it was first introduced into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Jimenez by virtue of a later Greek manuscript which had been corrected in accordance with a Latin text. Finally, Newton the significance and context of the verse and concluded: Meaning is thus simple and natural, and the argument is comprehensive and powerful but if you insert the testimony of the three in heaven, you disrupt it and destroy it. Newton showed how it had been made a little change in the Greek text. The word God was inserted and the sentence would read: God was manifest in the flesh. He pointed out that when the early church writers referred to this verse, they had no knowledge of such a change. Newton summed it all by saying: If churches of old had no knowledge of these two scriptures when discussing the greatest religious mysteries and hit his decision, I can not understand why we should be so concerned about them now when the discussion is over. Why did the government not Newton that while he lived. A look back at the circumstances at the time may explain this. Those who wrote against the Trinity was still persecuted in England. As late as 1698 was, according to a law on the suppression of blasphemy and worldliness an offense to deny that one of the persons of the Trinity was God. Newton's friend William Whiston who lost his professorship at Cambrigde for this reason in 1711. In 1693, a publication that attacked Trinity burnt by order of the house. In 1697, a 18 year old student who was accused of denying the Trinity hanged in Scotland. Newton's main argument for rejecting the Trinity was that when he tried to verify the creeds and church meetings statements he found no support in the Bible for this doctrine. Newton therefore found him on the basis of the biblical testimony, logic and the authentic teachings that were taught in the early Christian times, could not accept the Trinity. He believed firmly in Jehovah God as the supreme Sovereign and accepted Jesus Christ position by either compromising him as the son of God or to elevate him to the position his father meant. It is clearly the conclusion Newton here is going and it is shown always evident from his writings how he looked at the relationship between the Father and the Son. Elsewhere he says, therefore, that prayers should be directed to God in the name of the Lamb, but the Lamb of God.

Erasmus changed the verse of 1 Joh. b 5.7. for it would vote with the Trinity

Since the New Testament of the Greek manuscripts were published in 1516, a scholar named Erasmus did not include these verses to the great hubbub of his theological opponents who maintained that he had a mischievous way removed from Trinity Bible. Erasmus replied that he could not find this part in any of the Greek manuscripts he knew. And here goes the story. He challenged his opponents to produce a Greek manuscript of the Trinity. If they did it, he would include it in the next edition of the NT. In response produced his opponents a manuscript or at least they got a produced. Some copied John's first letter from the Greek and added these verses and presented them to Erasmus. As the honorable man he was, he included these verses in the next edition. It was this version that became the basis for the King James version, which was important in the historical Bible in English. These verses are still in the King James version but not the newer and more reliable translations. This is why an older generation of readers of the English Bible was assumed that the Bible taught the dogma of the Trinity, although this is not found in any Greek manuscripts in more than a thousand years. So what is the most reliable? The Greek manuscripts or the much later Latin? Now let this be very clear, I stick to the original Greek manuscript. Then one must reject both the Trinity and Jesus only doctrine and belief in only one God, the Father, and that he only has one and only Son, Jesus Christ!

In John's prologue is also the verses changed it to match the unscriptural trinity doctrine

In John 1: 1 is, according to the Norwegian Bible Society translation of 1978/85: "In the beginning was the Word. Word was with God, and the Word was God. "Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly that" the Word "is Jesus. (John 1: 14) But since the word is referred to as God, is there anyone who draws the conclusion that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God. We must be aware that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, the Greek text translated into other languages. But a number of Bible translators have not translated the last words of John 1: 1 with "the Word was God." Why not? Based on their knowledge of biblical Greek, they concluded that these words should be translated in a different way. How have they chosen to translate them? Here are some examples: "The Word was of divine species." (The New Testament in a new translation by Sounds brown, Oslo) "the Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved Version, London) "The Word was a divine being. »(La Bible du Centenaire, Paris) According to these translations are not word God. 1 Instead, the word referred to as "a god", because of his high position among the Lord God creatures. The word "God" here means "one who is mighty." And it speaks primarily about quality word God here. Jesus is the only one who has the same life and light and features fully as Father. Consider this example: A teacher explains a topic for their students. Afterward, the students disagreed about how to understand the explanation. How can they find out of the case? They may ask the teacher to get more information. When they get more facts, it is probably easier for them to understand the subject. In a similar way you can understand what it says in John 1: 1, means, go to the Gospel of John for more information about Jesus' position. The fact that you get more facts, would make it easier for you to draw the right conclusion. Think for example of what John writes in chapter 1, verse 18: "No one has ever seen [Almighty] God." But people have seen Jesus, the Son. John says "the Word [Jesus] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory." (John 1: 14, NO) How could the Son be part of Almighty God? John says that the Word was "with God." But how can a person be with someone and be that person? And in John 17: 3 Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and his heavenly Father. He describes his father as "the only true God." At the end of his Gospel summarizes John also his report on the signs Jesus did, by saying: "These have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John 20: 31) Notice that Jesus referred to as the Son of God, not God. This additional information that John's Gospel comes with, shows how John 1: 1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is "a god" in the sense that he has a high position, but he is not the same as God Almighty.

We stand ready to clear indications that Thomas never accused Jesus as God



Here I list several passages that are incorrect and misleading voted for it should match with the unbiblical and false belief that Jesus is God and thus defend Trinitarian doctrine!

Joh. AD 20 28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God! How it should be and could be translated: 28 Tomas broke out in thanksgiving to God.

1. Tim. 3. 16 And as everyone must confess, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory. How it could and should have been translated: 16 And that every man should confess, great is the mystery of godliness: Christ was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Titus 2 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the revelation of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. How it could and should have been translated: While we wait for the blessed hope and the revelation of our Saviour Jesus Christ is coming when the great glory of God.

1. Joh. B. 5 20 but we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding to know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. How it could and should have been translated: We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us understanding so that we can know the truth. And we are in him, the True, we are in His Son Jesus Christ. Father is the true God and his son brings.

Final Comment: This is a short article where I reveal how unbiblical and illogical and developing mathematical Trinity is. Father is not man, but God. Jesus is not God, but man. And the Holy Spirit is not man or God, but part of both the Father and the Son when the Bible again and again saying that the Holy Spirit is God and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Jesus is 100% God and 100% human, but 100% human. He can not be 200%? The whole Trinity is absurd, intricate and unbiblical!

Related links: http://janchristensen.net/index2.php?side=video http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/