clear challenges to the trinity doctrine

[tigger2]

CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

"trinity ...1. [cap.] Theol. The union of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons or hypostases as to individuality. 2. Any symbol of the Trinity in art. 3. Any union of three in one; a triad; as the Hindu trinity, or Trimurti." - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., 1961. (underlined emphasis added by me.)
………………………………..

Athanasian Creed:

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater or less than others; but the whole three persons are co- eternal together; and co-equal. So that in all things as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

"HE THEREFORE THAT WILL BE SAVED MUST THUS THINK OF THE TRINITY."
....................................................
"Trinity, the Most Holy

"The most sublime mystery of the Christian faith is this: 'God is absolutely one in nature and essence, and relatively three in Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are really distinct from each other." - p. 584, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers, 1976.
........................................................

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"1. The Term 'Trinity':
"The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence." - p. 3012, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984.

………………………………....

Clear Challenges from scripture itself:

(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown as more than one person.

(This is really not that difficult. Either there is a vision, dream, description, etc. somewhere in scripture clearly visibly showing the one God as three persons or there isn't. Either way, it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
………………………………............

(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."

(Either God is described somewhere in scripture using the word "three" or its clear equivalent (just as He is clearly and frequently described with the word “one� or its equivalent - “alone,� “only,� etc. ), or He is not. Either way it should not be difficult to ascertain and admit truthfully.)
……………………………….............

(C) Please find clear, direct, undisputed statements (equivalent to “Jesus is the Christ� or "YHWH is God" which are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declare:

“YHWH is the Son,� or “YHWH is the Firstborn,� or, “YHWH is the Messiah (or ‘Christ’),� or any other equally clear, undisputed statement that “Jesus is YHWH� (the only God according to scripture).
……………………………….................

Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God, the Son," (equal to those which declare "God, the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; etc.)

and,
………………………………....................

(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures (such as "God, the Father") where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."
......................................................................

(F) If Jesus and/or the first century Christians (considered a sect of Judaism at that time) truly believed that Jesus was God, how could they possibly be allowed to teach in the temple and synagogues as they were? (This not only would not have been allowed, but the Jews would have stoned them to death.)
………………………………...................

(G) If John truly believed a stunning new essential ‘knowledge’ of God that Jesus is equally God, why would he summarize and conclude his Gospel with, “But these [the Gospel of John] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…�

……………………………….................

(H) When the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were attempting to gather evidence to kill Jesus, why did they have to hire false witnesses? And why did these same priests and false witnesses never say that Jesus believed (or taught) that he was God? Instead the high priest finally said to Jesus: “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.� - Matt. 26:59-63 NIV.

Obviously these officials had never heard anyone accuse Jesus or his followers of claiming that Jesus was God!

I believe any objective observer would admit that the answers to these simple scriptural challenges (A-H above) should be abundantly, clearly, indisputably available if the trinity (or ‘Jesus is God’) worshipers are correct.

To look for rare instances of unclear, disputed scriptures which have to be interpreted to fit a trinitarian concept (developed after the death of the last Apostle and the completion of Scripture) and convince yourself that they are "proofs" seems to me to be a tragic error.

God has always existed as God and, therefore, His people should have always known who He was and worshiped him in truth.

To believe that God withheld this information from his people (or made it something to be interpreted from unclear references) from the beginning (and throughout all Scriptures) seems to be a tragic error.

[AdHoc]

Here's a couple verses:

Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

And

1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

[2timothy316]

Here's a couple verses:

Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·oʹtes in basically the same way it does thei·oʹtes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.� (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as “divinity.� Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering the·oʹtes as referring to quality, not personality.

1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

Most translations do not add 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'. This is because oldest copies of John's letter do not have have that last line in them. Meaning, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" was added later and were not part of the original letter.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm

[polonius]

Here's a couple verses:

Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

And

1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

RESPONSE: I'm afraid that your bible is out of date. That passage adde in the 6th century has been replaced.

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/b ... verses-7-8

Most Bible commentaries that mention this addition tell us that it is a spurious comment added to the biblical text. Consider the words of The New Bible Commentary: Revised: “Notice that AV [the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point. But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins� (1970, p. 1269).
In the New Revised Standard Version, 1 John 5:7-8 correctly and more concisely reads, “There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.� John personifies the three elements here as providing testimony, just as Solomon personified wisdom in the book of Proverbs.

Note: This was added to some Greek texts in the 6th century

[brianbbs67]

Its was a great revelation to me to find the NT had been added to, and taken from to suit churches(I assume). But, God's truth will out. As I have said, for religious leaders to know these things and tell not the congregation, is misleading and disingenuous at best. Deception at worst.

These verses should be in different font and color with complete footnotes explaining the reason. It ok to add scripture if God inspires(I guess, in a perefect world) but to add like the copyists and others did without clear distinction is wrong with a capital W.

[AdHoc]

Here's a couple verses:

Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·oʹtes in basically the same way it does thei·oʹtes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.� (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as “divinity.� Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering the·oʹtes as referring to quality, not personality.

But even if we agree that this verse is not stating Jesus has all Divine personality is it then stating that He has all the fullness of Divine quality?

What about when Jesus said in John 8:58 "Truly, truly before Abraham was born, I am"

What was He saying about Himself?

1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

Most translations do not add 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'. This is because oldest copies of John's letter do not have have that last line in them. Meaning, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" was added later and were not part of the original letter.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm

That's a good point a learned something there.

Who is the Holy Spirit?

[2timothy316]

Here's a couple verses:

Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·oʹtes in basically the same way it does thei·oʹtes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.� (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as “divinity.� Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering the·oʹtes as referring to quality, not personality.

But even if we agree that this verse is not stating Jesus has all Divine personality is it then stating that He has all the fullness of Divine quality?

To understand what is meant by 'in God's form' is simply to answer the question, 'What is God's form'? John 4:24 says, God is a spirit. Now that we know that 'God form' is a spirit this means that Jesus has the same form, that of a spirit. Like you and I share the same form. What is that 'form'? Human or physical beings right. The question of 'divinity' is really a question about definition of that word. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it say that only the Almighty God can have the quality of being divine. This is like saying only one human have the quality of being wise. However, the Bible does say that only God is "good" or perfect. Yet Jesus recognizes that even he doesn't possess this quality. (Luke 18:1) Yet perfection doesn't equal divine, divine means something that is from God or something that pertains to God. Powerful and heavenly.

What about when Jesus said in John 8:58 "Truly, truly before Abraham was born, I am"

What was He saying about Himself?

Before Abraham was Noah. Does this make Noah Almighty God? Of course not. This scripture Jesus was just saying that he has been around a lot longer than they 30 year old person they saw in front of them. When we read what Jesus says, it's a good practice to read the context and see who he was speaking to. In John 8:13 we see that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees when he said, "before Abraham came into existence, I have been." 'I was ." The Pharisees couldn't comprehend such a person. In verse 53 of the same chapter the Pharisees said, "You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you?" They didn't walk by faith but but sight. Jesus was boldly pointing this out to them.

Context is very important and helpful.

1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

Most translations do not add 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'. This is because oldest copies of John's letter do not have have that last line in them. Meaning, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" was added later and were not part of the original letter.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm

That's a good point a learned something there.

Isn't even a sliver truth a wonderful thing? It's like potato chips. When we find a truth, just one isn't satisfactory. It encourages us to keep going, looking for more.

Who is the Holy Spirit?

Did you know, that question is never asked in the Bible. In Exodus 5:2 Pharaoh asked who the God of the Hebrews was, that he must obey him. In Matthew 16:13 people were asking who Jesus was. Yet in the Bible, no one ever asked who is the Holy Spirit. To put it simply, Holy Spirit is the means by which God exerts His power. Acts 1:8 says, "You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you.� and we know it is from God because Luke 11:13 says, "Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!� Luke 11:13. Holy Spirit can be given to others. So God is not giving a spiritual being to another person. He is giving His righteous power to do His will. It's called "holy" because a) it comes from God and b) is special power because that power can't be used for an evil purpose, only for a good purpose, God's purpose. (Luke 11:12)

[AdHoc]

Here's a couple verses:

Colossians 2:9
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;"

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·oʹtes in basically the same way it does thei·oʹtes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.� (P. 792) The Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate render this word as “divinity.� Thus, here too, there is a solid basis for rendering the·oʹtes as referring to quality, not personality.

But even if we agree that this verse is not stating Jesus has all Divine personality is it then stating that He has all the fullness of Divine quality?

To understand what is meant by 'in God's form' is simply to answer the question, 'What is God's form'? John 4:24 says, God is a spirit. Now that we know that 'God form' is a spirit this means that Jesus has the same form, that of a spirit. Like you and I share the same form. What is that 'form'? Human or physical beings right. The question of 'divinity' is really a question about definition of that word. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it say that only the Almighty God can have the quality of being divine. This is like saying only one human have the quality of being wise. However, the Bible does say that only God is "good" or perfect. Yet Jesus recognizes that even he doesn't possess this quality. (Luke 18:1) Yet perfection doesn't equal divine, divine means something that is from God or something that pertains to God. Powerful and heavenly.

You don't believe the bible states that Jesus was good and perfect?

The rich young ruler was trying to live a perfect life and Jesus shot him down before he even got going with "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". You are inferring that He is saying He isn't good but that's an assumption. Clearly the bible teaches that Jesus is good and so if Jesus is good then He is God.

What about when Jesus said in John 8:58 "Truly, truly before Abraham was born, I am"

What was He saying about Himself?

Before Abraham was Noah. Does this make Noah Almighty God? Of course not. This scripture Jesus was just saying that he has been around a lot longer than they 30 year old person they saw in front of them. When we read what Jesus says, it's a good practice to read the context and see who he was speaking to. In John 8:13 we see that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees when he said, "before Abraham came into existence, I have been." 'I was ." The Pharisees couldn't comprehend such a person. In verse 53 of the same chapter the Pharisees said, "You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you?" They didn't walk by faith but but sight. Jesus was boldly pointing this out to them.

Context is very important and helpful.

Jesus said "before Abraham was I am". Jesus would've known that this would've been an extremely offensive thing to say to the Pharisees who would never accept Him as their God. "I am" is seen now (and then) as a reference to God's Holy name I AM WHO I AM or I AM.

That it was clearly a reference to God's holy name is evidenced by the fact that they immediately picked up stones to kill Him after he said those words.

1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

Most translations do not add 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one'. This is because oldest copies of John's letter do not have have that last line in them. Meaning, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" was added later and were not part of the original letter.
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm

That's a good point a learned something there.

Isn't even a sliver truth a wonderful thing? It's like potato chips. When we find a truth, just one isn't satisfactory. It encourages us to keep going, looking for more.

Haha sometimes I think I eat too many chips.

Who is the Holy Spirit?

Did you know, that question is never asked in the Bible. In Exodus 5:2 Pharaoh asked who the God of the Hebrews was, that he must obey him. In Matthew 16:13 people were asking who Jesus was. Yet in the Bible, no one ever asked who is the Holy Spirit. To put it simply, Holy Spirit is the means by which God exerts His power. Acts 1:8 says, "You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you.� and we know it is from God because Luke 11:13 says, "Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!� Luke 11:13. Holy Spirit can be given to others. So God is not giving a spiritual being to another person. He is giving His righteous power to do His will. It's called "holy" because a) it comes from God and b) is special power because that power can't be used for an evil purpose, only for a good purpose, God's purpose. (Luke 11:12)

If the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force how can He have a mind, will and emotions?

and

If the Holy Spirit is "the means by which God exerts His power" how can Jesus say He will send the Holy Spirit if He isn't God?

[tigger2]

Ad Hoc:

"The rich young ruler was trying to live a perfect life and Jesus shot him down before he even got going with "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". You are inferring that He is saying He isn't good but that's an assumption. Clearly the bible teaches that Jesus is good and so if Jesus is good then He is God."

........................
T2:
Jesus made it very clear that no one is GOOD (agathos) except God. - Mark 10:18. But see Acts 11:24. Barnabas is a GOOD (agathos) person! If Jesus can say, when he was called a GOOD teacher, "Don't call me good (agathos) because only GOD is GOOD!" (Mark 10:18), then, 'obviously,' the inspired Bible writer is proclaiming at Acts 11:24 that Barnabas is GOD! Paul also clearly states this truth when he says to the brothers: "ye also are FULL OF GOODNESS, filled with all knowledge...." - Rom. 15:14. If no one but God is good and Jesus' body of brothers is GOOD ....
..........................

Ad Hoc:
"Jesus said 'before Abraham was I am'. Jesus would've known that this would've been an extremely offensive thing to say to the Pharisees who would never accept Him as their God. 'I am' is seen now (and then) as a reference to God's Holy name I AM WHO I AM or I AM.

"That it was clearly a reference to God's holy name is evidenced by the fact that they immediately picked up stones to kill Him after he said those words."

....................
T2:
The words ego eimi ('I Am') formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures (just as it is in English today). It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one’s Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!

The ex-blind man, when actually identifying himself, said “ego eimi� ("I Am"), but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be God! And, of course, no one attempted to stone him! - John 9:9. Also Acts 26:29 and more.


Isn't it interesting how no one has answered any of the OP's literal challenges? Throwing out the same old trinity 'proofs' doesn't answer any of them.

[AdHoc]

Ad Hoc:

"The rich young ruler was trying to live a perfect life and Jesus shot him down before he even got going with "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". You are inferring that He is saying He isn't good but that's an assumption. Clearly the bible teaches that Jesus is good and so if Jesus is good then He is God."

........................
T2:
Jesus made it very clear that no one is GOOD (agathos) except God. - Mark 10:18. But see Acts 11:24. Barnabas is a GOOD (agathos) person! If Jesus can say, when he was called a GOOD teacher, "Don't call me good (agathos) because only GOD is GOOD!" (Mark 10:18), then, 'obviously,' the inspired Bible writer is proclaiming at Acts 11:24 that Barnabas is GOD! Paul also clearly states this truth when he says to the brothers: "ye also are FULL OF GOODNESS, filled with all knowledge...." - Rom. 15:14. If no one but God is good and Jesus' body of brothers is GOOD ....

Good point. And why was Barnabas "a good man"? Jesus commanded us to be perfect just as our Heavenly Father is perfect. I think the clue to unlock that secret is in the scripture you quoted.

..........................

Ad Hoc:
"Jesus said 'before Abraham was I am'. Jesus would've known that this would've been an extremely offensive thing to say to the Pharisees who would never accept Him as their God. 'I am' is seen now (and then) as a reference to God's Holy name I AM WHO I AM or I AM.

"That it was clearly a reference to God's holy name is evidenced by the fact that they immediately picked up stones to kill Him after he said those words."

....................
T2:
The words ego eimi ('I Am') formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures (just as it is in English today). It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one’s Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!

And yet the Pharasees, who denied that Jesus was God, took up stones to kill Him...

The ex-blind man, when actually identifying himself, said “ego eimi� ("I Am"), but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be God! And, of course, no one attempted to stone him! - John 9:9. Also Acts 26:29 and more.

Did the blind man say "Before Abraham was I am"?

I realize Jesus didn't say "Before Abraham was YHWH". I'd be interested to hear your explanation of His statement because it seemed to have a drastic effect on the Pharasees. To them He wasn't simply saying He was born before Abraham because they didn't start picking up rocks when He said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day.

Isn't it interesting how no one has answered any of the OP's literal challenges? Throwing out the same old trinity 'proofs' doesn't answer any of them.

It's also interesting to characterize your respondents as "throwing out the same old trinity 'proofs'"

Is this an effective engagement strategy and does newness increase truth?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

It is unnecessary to divide the Godhead. God is simply all of the above.