A contradiction in the bible

Originally posted by fbipeeper

God made man in His image.... if this is was God's physical likeness, we would all look the same, but God is on a level above us, and made us how God sees things....

God has a mind: The father
God has a spirit: The Holy Spirit
God has a body: The Word, thus becomes Jesus when taking the flesh of men

1. The Trinity doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture, but trinities were common in Paganism and were prominent in Egypt and Babylon.
2. The beginnings of recognition of this doctrine started at the Council of Nicea approximately 325 AD. Hundreds of years after the last book in the Bible was written.
3. The Council of Nicea was organized by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he had the final say on matters that he had little understanding of.
4. Creed followed creed, and eventually idols were accepted as forms that we can worship God through, and Mary was exalted to be the Mother of God and worship of the saints was sanctioned.
5. The organized church was built on top of these creeds. The creeds were and are the foundation for many of today's churches/denominations. These denominations are different to the Body of Christ spoken of in the scriptures. This shows us that most denominations are still rooted in a creed and in particular the Trinity doctrine. Most denominations still have the Trinity doctrine as a foundation and this doctrine originally came from Babylon.
6. The mother of these denominations the Roman Catholic Church murdered approximately 50 million people, had armies and banned access to scripture to Christians. This time is known today as the Dark Ages.
7. Some relief came during the Reformation where the teachings and authority of the Catholic Church were challenged. The Reformation restored many truths back to the Body of Christ.
8. As a result many new denominations started up and unfortunately they held onto some of the creeds and in particular the Trinity doctrine.
Is the Trinity doctrine taught in the bible?

From a historical point of view it seems strange to me that one of the pillars of Christianity didn't come into existence or wasn't recognized until 300 years after the death of Christ. On this point alone, I think its strange that we are encouraged not to question this doctrine and worse still, the the circumstances in which this doctrine came about should lead any clear thinking person to be at least suspicious.
I think the fruit of this doctrine is evident. If we exalt Jesus as God, then why not exalt Mary who after gave birth to Jesus. We can now see how Mary came to be called the Mother of God and how worship of the saints was sanctioned. So these creeds became the new foundation and on top of this foundation men built their churches/denominations.

Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ." (Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ." (Isaiah 43:3). According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.
Trinity advocates use:
"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1);
". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." (John 14:9)
". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."John 17:11
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 3:8,9.

The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:
"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17)
". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ." (John 14:28)
"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)
"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (Peter 3:22)
There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.
Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a "mystery" and we "just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding "No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence? The Trinity Doctrine/Dogma Exposed

This pretty sums up most of my argument to this point.


From a historical point of view it seems strange to me that one of the pillars of Christianity didn't come into existence or wasn't recognized until 300 years after the death of Christ. On this point alone, I think its strange that we are encouraged not to question this doctrine and worse still, the the circumstances in which this doctrine came about should lead any clear thinking person to be at least suspicious.
I think the fruit of this doctrine is evident. If we exalt Jesus as God, then why not exalt Mary who after gave birth to Jesus. We can now see how Mary came to be called the Mother of God and how worship of the saints was sanctioned. So these creeds became the new foundation and on top of this foundation men built their churches/denominations.

IMHO it is clearly a doctrine of man, and violates the 1st commandment.

Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different, and various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies.[13] Both accounts, however, trace his line back to King David and from there to Abraham. These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ between David and Joseph. Matthew starts with Solomon and proceeds through the kings of Judah to the last king, Jeconiah. After Jeconiah, the line of kings terminated when Babylon conquered Judah. Thus, Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel. Luke's genealogy is longer than Matthew's; it goes back to Adam and provides more names between David and Jesus.

Originally posted by mattifikation

Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different, and various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies.[13] Both accounts, however, trace his line back to King David and from there to Abraham. These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ between David and Joseph. Matthew starts with Solomon and proceeds through the kings of Judah to the last king, Jeconiah. After Jeconiah, the line of kings terminated when Babylon conquered Judah. Thus, Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel. Luke's genealogy is longer than Matthew's; it goes back to Adam and provides more names between David and Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gosh, one gospel says one thing and another gospel says something else? Why, that would be a contradiction, and thus, an error in the Bible. By the very nature of the Bible's claims, just one error is enough to indicate the falsehood of the entire religion.

While the Genesis account may appear very simple, what it says has deep significance. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was not poisonous but wholesome, literally “good for food.” So God’s restriction regarding this fruit was the only thing that made eating of it bad.

The tree was therefore a fitting symbol of the right to determine or set the standards of good and bad, which right God reserved for Himself by forbidding Adam to eat thereof. This prohibition emphasized man’s proper dependence on God as his Sovereign Ruler. By obedience the first man and woman could demonstrate that they respected God’s right to make known to them what was “good” (divinely approved) and what was “bad” (divinely condemned). Disobedience on their part would have signified a rebellion against God’s sovereignty.

This understanding of matters is acknowledged in a footnote of the modern Catholic translation known as The Jerusalem Bible: “The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”