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]

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.

Yes, perfect needs to be understood. My previous post I said Jesus didn't hold the quality of good. 'Quality' needs explanation, and I see now it wasn't really what I wanted to covey. Jesus didn't want the title of 'good teacher'. Jesus is good and he is a teacher. It seems though that the way the Scribes used the term 'Good Teacher' was to imply that they had final say where all truth came from. Jesus, hated that title and didn't what it placed on him. John 14:28 Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I". This means that Jesus' Father, Jehovah (Ps 83:18) is the only true 'Good Teacher'. In fact since Jehovah is greater than Jesus, Jehovah can be considered that ultimate "Good" of everything. There is no one is perfect like Jesus' Father, Jehovah. He is the source of perfection. These means that a human can be a perfect human and Jesus can be a perfect human and Son. Yet Jesus is not the source of all perfection, Jesus came from perfection.

Thats an interesting belief but you haven't really established it with any scriptural proof.

You say Jesus didn't want to be called "Good Teacher" but that's not what He said. He said no one is good but God.

You're making the assumption that He's not God.

Who do you believe is the Good Shepherd?

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

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.

If we think about what Jesus was saying, up to that time there had been no human prophet that lived before they were human. Jesus was the first and only one to be sent to earth this way. The Jews were expecting something else and what they were expecting wasn't scriptural. Jesus even told them many times, 'you don't know the scriptures'. They didn't expect a simple, humble man.

Let's say you're right.

Still the question remains, why did they take up stones to kill Him?

No one threatened to stone Him when they thought He was saying He pre-dated Abraham. It wasn't until He said, "Before Abraham was, I am".

What was it about that statement that caused them to decide to stone Him to death.

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?

What does increase truth but the Bible? Those 'same ol' proofs' are still proofs, age doesn't matter. In fact the 'proofs' there is no trinity were there before the trinity was first spoken or even thought of.

Proof that there is no trinity?...

I would be very interested to hear that proof.

[2timothy316]

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.

Yes, perfect needs to be understood. My previous post I said Jesus didn't hold the quality of good. 'Quality' needs explanation, and I see now it wasn't really what I wanted to covey. Jesus didn't want the title of 'good teacher'. Jesus is good and he is a teacher. It seems though that the way the Scribes used the term 'Good Teacher' was to imply that they had final say where all truth came from. Jesus, hated that title and didn't what it placed on him. John 14:28 Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I". This means that Jesus' Father, Jehovah (Ps 83:18) is the only true 'Good Teacher'. In fact since Jehovah is greater than Jesus, Jehovah can be considered that ultimate "Good" of everything. There is no one is perfect like Jesus' Father, Jehovah. He is the source of perfection. These means that a human can be a perfect human and Jesus can be a perfect human and Son. Yet Jesus is not the source of all perfection, Jesus came from perfection.

Thats an interesting belief but you haven't really established it with any scriptural proof.

You say Jesus didn't want to be called "Good Teacher" but that's not what He said. He said no one is good but God.

You're making the assumption that He's not God.

Yet when we read the text Jesus is not saying he is God. You're making the assumption that he is God. Here is what Luke 18:19 says, "But Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, God." There is only One that is good. Jesus didn't include himself as 'good'. Yet Jesus asked, 'why are you calling me good?'

Jesus made it clear that he didn't approve of the titles the Jews gave themselves. Matt 23:8 "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students." Yet Jesus was fine with himself being called plain teacher, "You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are correct, for I am such." John 13:13

Who do you believe is the Good Shepherd?

The good shepherd is not the same as the good teacher.
There are two different words for the term 'good' in Greek.

John 10:11 uses 'kalos' shepherd meaning "beautiful, good, worthy"
http://biblehub.com/greek/2570.htm

Yet in Luke:18:19 the Greek word 'agathos' is used. Which means, "intrinsically good". God is naturally Good or the essence of good. and Jesus didn't describe himself this way. The Rabbis of Jesus' days did call themselves 'agathos' teachers. That title was apparently improper.
http://biblehub.com/greek/18.htm

[2timothy316]

Proof that there is no trinity?...

I would be very interested to hear that proof.

“Jehovah Our God Is One Jehovah�—Deuteronomy 6:4

If there was ever a time to establish the trinity, that verse would have been the time. Never does God refer to Himself as 3 n 1. He only refers to Himself as One.

[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.

Yes, perfect needs to be understood. My previous post I said Jesus didn't hold the quality of good. 'Quality' needs explanation, and I see now it wasn't really what I wanted to covey. Jesus didn't want the title of 'good teacher'. Jesus is good and he is a teacher. It seems though that the way the Scribes used the term 'Good Teacher' was to imply that they had final say where all truth came from. Jesus, hated that title and didn't what it placed on him. John 14:28 Jesus said, 'The Father is greater than I". This means that Jesus' Father, Jehovah (Ps 83:18) is the only true 'Good Teacher'. In fact since Jehovah is greater than Jesus, Jehovah can be considered that ultimate "Good" of everything. There is no one is perfect like Jesus' Father, Jehovah. He is the source of perfection. These means that a human can be a perfect human and Jesus can be a perfect human and Son. Yet Jesus is not the source of all perfection, Jesus came from perfection.

Thats an interesting belief but you haven't really established it with any scriptural proof.

You say Jesus didn't want to be called "Good Teacher" but that's not what He said. He said no one is good but God.

You're making the assumption that He's not God.

Yet when we read the text Jesus is not saying he is God. You're making the assumption that he is God. Here is what Luke 18:19 says, "But Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, God." There is only One that is good. Jesus didn't include himself as 'good'. Yet Jesus asked, 'why are you calling me good?'

I'm actually not making the assumption that Jesus is God. The bible clearly states that fact and I've quoted a sample of those scriptures in this thread.

On the other hand, nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus isn't God you have to assume it from this cryptic reference. We can both argue what we think Jesus means but we don't know for sure. You must admit Jesus often messed with people in the way He said things.

For example He said He didn't come for the righteous but the sinners.

The bible says there are no righteous.

He said that the bible says ye are all gods, when it's fairly self-evident that humans are not gods.

Jesus made it clear that he didn't approve of the titles the Jews gave themselves. Matt 23:8 "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students." Yet Jesus was fine with himself being called plain teacher, "You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are correct, for I am such." John 13:13

Who do you believe is the Good Shepherd?

The good shepherd is not the same as the good teacher.
There are two different words for the term 'good' in Greek.

John 10:11 uses 'kalos' shepherd meaning "beautiful, good, worthy"
http://biblehub.com/greek/2570.htm

Yet in Luke:18:19 the Greek word 'agathos' is used. Which means, "intrinsically good". God is naturally Good or the essence of good. and Jesus didn't describe himself this way. The Rabbis of Jesus' days did call themselves 'agathos' teachers. That title was apparently improper.
http://biblehub.com/greek/18.htm

But still please tell me, in your opinion, who is the Good Shepherd?

[AdHoc]

Proof that there is no trinity?...

I would be very interested to hear that proof.

“Jehovah Our God Is One Jehovah�—Deuteronomy 6:4

I'm not so sure that's proof that there is no trinity. In fact it could be argued that it might actually hint at the trinity because why else would God say that?

People who believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one God obviously accept this scripture and other scriptures that proclaim God as one God as truth.

If there was ever a time to establish the trinity, that verse would have been the time. Never does God refer to Himself as 3 n 1. He only refers to Himself as One.

God never refers to Himself in a plural sense? Are you positive of that?

[2timothy316]

Proof that there is no trinity?...

I would be very interested to hear that proof.

“Jehovah Our God Is One Jehovah�—Deuteronomy 6:4

I'm not so sure that's proof that there is no trinity. In fact it could be argued that it might actually hint at the trinity because why else would God say that?

People who believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one God obviously accept this scripture and other scriptures that proclaim God as one God as truth.

I don't argue with scriptures. So argue with it if you wish. Also, people are free to believe whatever they wish. When it comes to the identity of God I am not concerned with belief only truth. The belief that Deut 6:4 implies two more is a belief added almost 1900 years after Moses wrote it. I trust Moses and not the Athanasian creed. I do not recognize the Athanasian creed's writings to be 'God Breathed'. If they were then their writings would be added to Bible canon. As 2 Tim 3:16, 17 states, "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." Anything not in the Bible I do not accept as authored by God. If I was to put Moses' writing of Deuteronomy 6:4 on scales of truth against the Athanasian creed, Moses wins. Belief doesn't register when it comes to what God is. Because John 17:3 says it means our life to know who God is. The trinity confuses people in a shroud of mystery. One trinity believing religion describes the trinity as "an impenetrable paradox". This robs people of 'getting to know God' that is required for eternal life.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... inity.html

If there was ever a time to establish the trinity, that verse would have been the time. Never does God refer to Himself as 3 n 1. He only refers to Himself as One.

God never refers to Himself in a plural sense? Are you positive of that?

Yes I am positive God never refers to Himself as more than one person. I have heard this claim many times, but in truth He never does. The plural form of God in Hebrew gives the person spoken of special honor. The same plural form of the word 'lord' is used to describe king David in 1 Kings 1:43. Yet we know there is only one king David. Just like there is only One Almighty God. The plural form of God can mean mean many Gods. But when it refers to Jehovah, it means an honorable form of the word God. Like in English a little g and a capital G when using the word God. Yet trinitarians really can't use the plural form of God in Hebrew that as the source of an argument. Because they don't believe in many gods yet that is what the plural form of god means when not referring to Jehovah.

For more detail about Hebrew grammar check out the link below by Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003).
https://www.nas.org/articles/Ask_a_Scho ... lohim_Mean

[AdHoc]

Proof that there is no trinity?...

I would be very interested to hear that proof.

“Jehovah Our God Is One Jehovah�—Deuteronomy 6:4

I'm not so sure that's proof that there is no trinity. In fact it could be argued that it might actually hint at the trinity because why else would God say that?

People who believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one God obviously accept this scripture and other scriptures that proclaim God as one God as truth.

I don't argue with scriptures. So argue with it if you wish.

What exactly do you mean when you say "argue with scriptures"? I think you may have spelled exegesis wrong.
Do you only have truths and no beliefs? Is there no way you might be wrong about anything?

Also, people are free to believe whatever they wish. When it comes to the identity of God I am not concerned with belief only truth. The belief that Deut 6:4 implies two more is a belief added almost 1900 years after Moses wrote it. I trust Moses and not the Athanasian creed. I do not recognize the Athanasian creed's writings to be 'God Breathed'. If they were then their writings would be added to Bible canon. As 2 Tim 3:16, 17 states, "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." Anything not in the Bible I do not accept as authored by God. If I was to put Moses' writing of Deuteronomy 6:4 on scales of truth against the Athanasian creed, Moses wins.

I don't know who Anathesia Creed is but Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life whoever believes in Me will live even if he dies"

Belief doesn't register when it comes to what God is. Because John 17:3 says it means our life to know who God is. The trinity confuses people in a shroud of mystery. One trinity believing religion describes the trinity as "an impenetrable paradox". This robs people of 'getting to know God' that is required for eternal life.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... inity.html

If there was ever a time to establish the trinity, that verse would have been the time. Never does God refer to Himself as 3 n 1. He only refers to Himself as One.

God never refers to Himself in a plural sense? Are you positive of that?

Yes I am positive God never refers to Himself as more than one person. I have heard this claim many times, but in truth He never does. The plural form of God in Hebrew gives the person spoken of special honor. The same plural form of the word 'lord' is used to describe king David in 1 Kings 1:43. Yet we know there is only one king David. Just like there is only One Almighty God. The plural form of God can mean mean many Gods. But when it refers to Jehovah, it means an honorable form of the word God. Like in English a little g and a capital G when using the word God. Yet trinitarians really can't use the plural form of God in Hebrew that as the source of an argument. Because they don't believe in many gods yet that is what the plural form of god means when not referring to Jehovah.

For more detail about Hebrew grammar check out the link below by Mark D. Futato, Robert L. Maclellan Professor of Old Testament and Academic Dean at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Dr. Futato received his Ph.D. and M.A. in Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He specializes in Hebrew language and is author of the book Beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2003).
https://www.nas.org/articles/Ask_a_Scho ... lohim_Mean

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

[brianbbs67]

Gaggle is your friend in this one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

[brianbbs67]

And the counter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

[AdHoc]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

Ahh... It's a Catholic thing.

My name might be Latin but I'm not catholic so that may have confused my Arianism debating partner.

Thank you for sharing this I learned something.