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. (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.
....
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 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?
...................
(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!
CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Moderator: Moderators
Post #221
Sorry - but this is an invalid answer.onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 212 by MarysSon]
Also....the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus because he was placing himself above Abraham, their precious forefather with whom they closely identified. Jesus said he existed BEFORE Abraham. They thought he was being an up-start trying to make himself higher than Abraham. They accused him of "making himself God" because that would, hopefully for them, get people to resent him. Their aim was to kill him because he exposed them as hypocrites. Jesus refuted their accusations in the following verses after they again accused him of making himself God at John 10:34-36. He said why do you accuse me of making myself God when the Scripture says that even men can be gods?" or words to that effect. He knew that "god" just meant an important powerful person, and if he was that, it was no big deal. They just wanted to stir up trouble for him. One thing he clearly said was "I AM GOD'S SON." Not "I am God."
If you think that he ever indicated that he was God, you are going against his own words to the contrary..
The Jews had NO recourse under the Law to stone Jesus to death for placing Himself above Abraham because this was a penalty for blasphemy.
Placing oneself above Abraham is NOT blasphemy. Comparing oneself to God IS blasphemy. Jesus used the same terminology with the Pharisees to identify Himself as God as Yaweh did when He identified Himself to Moses.
-
Eloi
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 216 times
- Contact:
Post #222
Any excuse Jews tried to use to kill Jesus was a good excuse FOR THEM .. not something we should be trying to take seriously. They even accused him of using demonic powers ... Should we take any of Jews accusations that serious? As OneWithHim said before: is not more important what Jesus answered back to them?
John 10:31Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32Jesus replied to them: I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me? 33The Jews answered him: We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god. 34Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, I said: You are gods? 35If he called gods those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified" 36do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Gods Son? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father. 39So they tried again to seize him, but he escaped from their reach.
John 10:31Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32Jesus replied to them: I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me? 33The Jews answered him: We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god. 34Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, I said: You are gods? 35If he called gods those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified" 36do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Gods Son? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father. 39So they tried again to seize him, but he escaped from their reach.
Post #223
NOT true.Eloi wrote: Any excuse Jews tried to use to kill Jesus was a good excuse FOR THEM .. not something we should be trying to take seriously. They even accused him of using demonic powers ... Should we take any of Jews accusations that serious? As OneWithHim said before: is not more important what Jesus answered back to them?
John 10:31Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32Jesus replied to them: I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me? 33The Jews answered him: We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god. 34Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, I said: You are gods? 35If he called gods those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified" 36do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Gods Son? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father. 39So they tried again to seize him, but he escaped from their reach.
The Jews painstakingly tried to stay within the parameters of the Law - at ALL times. They even attempted to do this with the trial and Crucifixion of Jesus.
They never would have publicly stoned him outside of the Law.
In John 8:58 - they had a perfect opportunity because Jesus claimed to be GOD.
-
Eloi
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 216 times
- Contact:
Post #224
Well, let me tell you something: if you think Jesus was saying that he was God (something not true) because Jews were accusing him of blasfemy (a real reason, even to me) ... then you, like them, are accussing Jesus of blasfemy ... If you are accepting the reason they used you accept their accusation too.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #225
[Replying to post 212 by MarysSon]
Concerning "Sharp's Rule."
Granville Sharp was an amateur theologian, and not particularly someone to look to for absolute understanding of the issue. We can see, if we examine his ideas, that his "rule" is a fiction and it does not survive close scrutiny.
There is no evidence that anything significant for the meaning of the words happens merely by being joined by "and" and dropping the second article. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament. The authors of the books of the N.T. didn't have their own form of Greek with their own set of rules. What did the rest of the Greek world do about such phrases?
We might look at what Herbert Smyth had to say in his Greek Grammar (1920), section 1143. In this work of standard Greek grammar, we don't find any rule like the one Sharp set forth in his ignorance. Two examples are interesting: "The generals and captains (the commanding officers):; "the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet)." We can see from these two examples that the two nouns combined by "and" ar not identical, and the individual words do not mean the same thing. Instead, by being combined, they suggest a larger whole.
The generals and captains together make up the more general category of "commanding officers," just as the various sized ships together constitute the fleet as a whole. So the article-noun-"and"-noun construction does combine individuals into larger wholes, but it does not necessarily identify them as one and the same thing. Smyth further clarifies this in section 1144: "A repeated article lays stress on each word." So when a writer wants to sharply distinguish two things, he will use the article with each noun; but when the two things in some way work together or belong to a broader unified whole, the article is left off of the second noun ."
So, if John wanted to make the point that the Word was God, he would've used the definite article with both nouns. It was a pretty important point, wouldn't you say? Saying that the Word was God Almighty was a very very important statement, if it was true. BOTH nouns would've had the definite article. However, this was not the case. God and the Word were two things not the same, but they both were part of a unified whole---God and His subordinate Son constituted such a godly, heavenly arrangement.
If this escapes your understanding, perhaps a book by---not an amateur theologian, but---an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, will help. He wrote this excellent book: Truth in Translation/ Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, and our particular issue is discussed on pages 92-94. Dr. BeDuhn is of no particular religious group and has no ax to grind. He only wants to get at the truth.
.
Concerning "Sharp's Rule."
Granville Sharp was an amateur theologian, and not particularly someone to look to for absolute understanding of the issue. We can see, if we examine his ideas, that his "rule" is a fiction and it does not survive close scrutiny.
There is no evidence that anything significant for the meaning of the words happens merely by being joined by "and" and dropping the second article. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament. The authors of the books of the N.T. didn't have their own form of Greek with their own set of rules. What did the rest of the Greek world do about such phrases?
We might look at what Herbert Smyth had to say in his Greek Grammar (1920), section 1143. In this work of standard Greek grammar, we don't find any rule like the one Sharp set forth in his ignorance. Two examples are interesting: "The generals and captains (the commanding officers):; "the largest and smallest ships (the whole fleet)." We can see from these two examples that the two nouns combined by "and" ar not identical, and the individual words do not mean the same thing. Instead, by being combined, they suggest a larger whole.
The generals and captains together make up the more general category of "commanding officers," just as the various sized ships together constitute the fleet as a whole. So the article-noun-"and"-noun construction does combine individuals into larger wholes, but it does not necessarily identify them as one and the same thing. Smyth further clarifies this in section 1144: "A repeated article lays stress on each word." So when a writer wants to sharply distinguish two things, he will use the article with each noun; but when the two things in some way work together or belong to a broader unified whole, the article is left off of the second noun ."
So, if John wanted to make the point that the Word was God, he would've used the definite article with both nouns. It was a pretty important point, wouldn't you say? Saying that the Word was God Almighty was a very very important statement, if it was true. BOTH nouns would've had the definite article. However, this was not the case. God and the Word were two things not the same, but they both were part of a unified whole---God and His subordinate Son constituted such a godly, heavenly arrangement.
If this escapes your understanding, perhaps a book by---not an amateur theologian, but---an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, will help. He wrote this excellent book: Truth in Translation/ Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, and our particular issue is discussed on pages 92-94. Dr. BeDuhn is of no particular religious group and has no ax to grind. He only wants to get at the truth.
.
-
onewithhim
- Savant
- Posts: 11114
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
- Location: Norwich, CT
- Has thanked: 1581 times
- Been thanked: 471 times
Post #226
You say that the Jews followed the Law painstakingly and "never would have stoned Jesus outside the Law," etc. They would not have been so brazen as to kill Jesus without a trial, though they would loved to have done so. They had to look good in the people's eyes so they would always appear righteous. However, this can be said:MarysSon wrote:NOT true.Eloi wrote: Any excuse Jews tried to use to kill Jesus was a good excuse FOR THEM .. not something we should be trying to take seriously. They even accused him of using demonic powers ... Should we take any of Jews accusations that serious? As OneWithHim said before: is not more important what Jesus answered back to them?
John 10:31Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32Jesus replied to them: I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me? 33The Jews answered him: We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god. 34Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your Law, I said: You are gods? 35If he called gods those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified" 36do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Gods Son? 37If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father. 39So they tried again to seize him, but he escaped from their reach.
The Jews painstakingly tried to stay within the parameters of the Law - at ALL times. They even attempted to do this with the trial and Crucifixion of Jesus.
They never would have publicly stoned him outside of the Law.
In John 8:58 - they had a perfect opportunity because Jesus claimed to be GOD.
The greatest travesty of justice ever commited was the trial and sentencing of Jesus Christ. Exactly what laws of God did the Sanhedrin violate by the way they handled that trial? These are devoid of interesting details, but briefly this is how the Pharisees flagrantly violated the Law:
1) Bribery (Deut.16:19; 27:25)
2) Conspiracy and the perversion of justice (Ex.23:1,2,6,7; Lev.19:15,35)
3) Conniving of the judges to find false witnesses (Exodus 20:16)
4) Bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and the land by letting a murderer go free (Num.35:31-34; Deut.19:11-13
5) Mob action, or "following a crowd to do evil" (Ex.23:2,3)
6) Followed the statutes of pagan nations where torture was encouraged; the Law of God prohibited torture and prescribed that a criminal be put to death BEFORE being hung on a stake ["cross"] (Lev.18:3-5; Deut.21:22)
7) Conducting a trial at night, when trials were always to be conducted during the day (see Luke 22:53)
There were more, but that suffices to show that the Jewish religious leaders were not interested in respecting the Law of God.
.
Post #227
Incorrect.onewithhim wrote: You say that the Jews followed the Law painstakingly and "never would have stoned Jesus outside the Law," etc. They would not have been so brazen as to kill Jesus without a trial, though they would loved to have done so. They had to look good in the people's eyes so they would always appear righteous. However, this can be said:
The greatest travesty of justice ever commited was the trial and sentencing of Jesus Christ. Exactly what laws of God did the Sanhedrin violate by the way they handled that trial? These are devoid of interesting details, but briefly this is how the Pharisees flagrantly violated the Law:
1) Bribery (Deut.16:19; 27:25)
2) Conspiracy and the perversion of justice (Ex.23:1,2,6,7; Lev.19:15,35)
3) Conniving of the judges to find false witnesses (Exodus 20:16)
4) Bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and the land by letting a murderer go free (Num.35:31-34; Deut.19:11-13
5) Mob action, or "following a crowd to do evil" (Ex.23:2,3)
6) Followed the statutes of pagan nations where torture was encouraged; the Law of God prohibited torture and prescribed that a criminal be put to death BEFORE being hung on a stake ["cross"] (Lev.18:3-5; Deut.21:22)
7) Conducting a trial at night, when trials were always to be conducted during the day (see Luke 22:53)
There were more, but that suffices to show that the Jewish religious leaders were not interested in respecting the Law of God.
In John 8:58, where Jesus tells them He is God - He caught them off guard. There was NO time to plan and scheme - and no need to - because in their eyes, He had just blasphemed God.
According to the Law - this gave them the right to stone Him to death - which is what they tried to do.
The Jews took their time in planning the crucifixion/execution of Jesus. This took a long time to make sure everything was perfect. All of the lying and scheming was planned out.
-
Eloi
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 216 times
- Contact:
Post #228
[Replying to post 227 by MarysSon]
MarySon said: "In John 8:58, where Jesus tells them He is God " ... REALLY?
John 8:57Then the Jews said to him: You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham? 58Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.
MarySon said: "In John 8:58, where Jesus tells them He is God " ... REALLY?
John 8:57Then the Jews said to him: You are not yet 50 years old, and still you have seen Abraham? 58Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.
Post #230
Even most trinitarian Bible translations deny any connection between Gods statement at Exodus 3:14 and Jesus reply to the Jews at John 8:58. They do this through the modern English usage of capitalizing personal names and exclusive titles. For example, Word at Jn 1:14; Lamb at Jn 1:36 and Rev 5:8; and Son at Jn 8:36.
Most of the trinitarian Bible translations that I have checked (24) have capitalized the words in question at Ex. 3:14 (I AM; or I Will Be; or I Will Become; etc.) to show their interpretation that this is a title or name of God. However, most of those same translations do not capitalize the words in question at John 8:58 (I am; I was; or I have existed; etc.): KJV; Douay Version; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; NLV; The New Testament in the Language of the People (CBW); Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham; Beck; and Byington. This shows they do not consider "I am" at John 8:58 to be a name at all, nor is it considered to be equivalent (in any sense) to Exodus 3:14.
So why did this post work for me when I deleted the original and inserted this edit??
Most of the trinitarian Bible translations that I have checked (24) have capitalized the words in question at Ex. 3:14 (I AM; or I Will Be; or I Will Become; etc.) to show their interpretation that this is a title or name of God. However, most of those same translations do not capitalize the words in question at John 8:58 (I am; I was; or I have existed; etc.): KJV; Douay Version; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; NLV; The New Testament in the Language of the People (CBW); Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham; Beck; and Byington. This shows they do not consider "I am" at John 8:58 to be a name at all, nor is it considered to be equivalent (in any sense) to Exodus 3:14.
So why did this post work for me when I deleted the original and inserted this edit??
Last edited by tigger2 on Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
