CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR 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. (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!

[tigger2]

I have proved to myself that the meaning intended by John is not "the Word was God." ]

You have certainly made a case for this view. Your suggestion that the indefinite article is implied, along with your contention that theos applies to those associated with God, is not recognised in the standard translation. Further, your belief that word order does not change the meaning is, I think, contentious. The meaning is found through case endings of course but if I take an example from Latin, with which I am more familiar,

reginam poeta laudat and poeta reginam laudat have the same meaning: The poet praises the queen. But by placing reginam first, we have the notion of: It's the QUEEN that the poet praises.

So the translation we would expect would be: " it is GOD that the word is." To consider the meaning "And the word is a god" may solve some subtleties of grammar. To me you are simply straining grammar to permit it to mean what you want the meaning to be. In this important text it seems reasonable to accept that John meant GOD when he used the word theos, and not an angel or messenger.

I can see how you have "proved to yourself" that "the word was God" is not a good translation; but treating theos as a noun like any other noun is downgrading the importance of the word . So discussions of the indefinite article, with this word, may not be appropriate.

It doesn't look like you actually read all five (of the seven lessons) lessons which deal with the study of John's grammar. Or, better yet, the original, longer study.

I have thoroughly dealt with the importance of word order for clauses parallel to John 1:1c. And I have examined every use of predicate nouns (before and after the verb). And every use of theos by John and explained the exceptions (as also explained in Trinitarian grammars).

If you really have questions concerning the "Seven Lessons" study, please start with lesson 1 and please be specific.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html or,

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... -11c.html

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 45 by onewithhim]

As you may have noticed in a previous post of mine, the problem is that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. At best, we receive only conflicting snap shots which we have to struggle to put together. You have cited a prime example. In many passages, Christ is presented as subordinate to God, whereas in others Christ is identified with God (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30, 38).

(1) There is no conflict. Christ is never identified with God, if a person wants to research what the passages really mean & how they are written.

John 1:1 is the weak peg that so many people hang their hats on. It creates a whole new religion! "The Word was God." Wow! But people don't realize just how it was intended by John, and this can be ascertained by applying some simple rules of Greek grammar vs. rules for English grammar.

The third clause of John 1:1: theos en ho logos (word-for-word: "and god was the word"). Look closely....we are confronted with the problem of the missing article before theos ("god"). As one Bible scholar puts it:

"Greek has only a definite article, like our the; it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will be properly rendered in English with 'a' or 'an.' We are not 'adding a word' when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say 'Snoopy is dog,' but must say 'Snoopy is a dog.' [All translations accurately render the clause ho logos as 'the word. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as 'a word.']

"Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially translate as 'the god'; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an indefinite noun that would normally be translated as 'a god'....So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the 'the' from 'god' and say that the Word was 'with God' (literally 'with the god.' But what about the indefinite theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun 'God,' but to the indefinite noun 'a god.' In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.'" (Truth in Translation, Jason David BeDuhn, pp.114-115)

This rule of translation from the Greek is recognized by The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, 1891. John 1:1c is rendered as "a god."

Another interesting viewpoint is found at

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html



So what does "god" without the definite article mean? What did it mean to John's audience? Simply that Jesus Christ was an important, powerful person, but different from "the god."



(2) John 10:30 certainly does not indicate that Jesus is God. He was stating that he was in agreement with the Father, that they were unified in thought. His meaning was exactly the same as what he said at John 17:21-23 where he prayed for his disciples, "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us...I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

Are the disciples God because they would be "one" with Him and Jesus? If Jesus is God because he said he was "one" with the Father, then the disciples are also God.

Did anyone click on the link I provided about the Coptic versions of John 1:1 from "1700 years ago"? I'd like to hear somebody's thoughts on this.

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html

[marco]

It doesn't look like you actually read all five (of the seven lessons) lessons which deal with the study of John's grammar. Or, better yet, the original, longer study. If you really have questions concerning the "Seven Lessons" study, please start with lesson 1 and please be specific.

You are obviously taking disagreement to indicate an impoverishment of understanding of your "lessons."

Your argument for the translation "a god" instead of "God" is fine but not conclusive. It is an assemblage of appeals to prior usage of nouns requiring indefinite articles, and an appeal to eminent figures of the time in their employment of language. I accept this is impressive, as you obviously require me to think.

However, like Trinitarians, you have your own axe to grind. The juxtaposition of theos in John's two statements would certainly suggest they are meant to be the same. To render them different requires the acceptance of a substratum of "gods" which, I think, is of dubious validity; or it requires the interpretation that there is something divine about the logos. This concept is adequately if mysteriously dealt with in the Trinity doctrine where Jesus enjoys two natures. The word was with God and the word was God-like (or some such epithet). The incarnation involved a human being and yet a man who shared the nature of God.

I don't see that this is at odds with the Trinity, even if we accept your propositions regarding the indefinite article. You are simply arguing for some union of two natures, one divine. So are they.

[Monta]

[Replying to onewithhim]


Did anyone click on the link I provided about the Coptic versions of John 1:1 from "1700 years ago"? I'd like to hear somebody's thoughts on this.

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago...//

I would rely more on the original Greek.

[marco]

Did anyone click on the link I provided about the Coptic versions of John 1:1 from "1700 years ago"? I'd like to hear somebody's thoughts on this.

Interesting article that seems to advocate polytheism. If one accepts angels and such other entities can be classified as gods, one may as well accept the Greek pantheon of gods and demigods. The outcry about definite and indefinite articles is amusing. Various nouns are found that attract the indefinite article. It is then concluded that "theos" should also accept an indefinite article, even though this word is, in monotheistic cultures, unique. It is not subject to the same grammatical considerations.

The Latin version from antiquity is: In principio verbum erat et verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat verbum. Capitals rule out any suggestion of indefinite articles. The discussion should be about the meaning of the word, rather than the word being God. Given that there seems to be room for several volumes of opinion, it would be unsafe to place any certainty on any interpretation of John here.

So what is meant by placing an indefinite article before theos? Does it mean "s sort of God", or "God-like" or "of the nature of God"? This is reasonable and this allows the entry of the Trinity. The word was God is perhaps a simple shorthand way of making this statement about the word's divinity.

Introducing a pantheon of gods and still claiming there is only one God is confused thinking. I hope this ends the confusion.

[dakoski]

CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE


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.

Hi Tigger, I realise the conversation has passed on since your OP but thought this was a really interesting thread and have enjoyed your thorough responses.

I'd like to respond to the first bit of your OP. I think there are a number of Scriptures that clearly show YHWH is more than one person and would be interested in your response to these. Probably the clearest is Exodus 33: 7-22. Exodus 33:11 says in every translation that I've seen (including the New World Translation) that Moses spoke with YHWH face to face. Yet 33:20 says very clearly that no one may see the face of YHWH and live.

This passage very clearly shows that YHWH is more than one person - since its impossible for Moses to be able to both see that person face-to-face and yet also not be able to see that same person face-to-face. Yet its also not teaching polytheism as both persons mentioned in Exodus 33 bear the same name YHWH - hence affirming the plurality and unity of God.

[marco]

Exodus 33:11 says in every translation that I've seen (including the New World Translation) that Moses spoke with YHWH face to face. Yet 33:20 says very clearly that no one may see the face of YHWH and live.

Zeus gave the same warning to Semele, but of course she didn't heed it. You are right that Moses spoke "face to face" with God and yet he was told that God's face could not be revealed.

I think it is the exchange of conversation that is intended here rather than physical presence. I don't see any suggestion of multiple persons, but were one Trinitarian, one could certainly accept that the "human side" of God communicated face to face. This might be an anachronism - Christmas being a long way off - but with God all things are possible.

[dakoski]

[Replying to marco]

I think it is the exchange of conversation that is intended here rather than physical presence. I don't see any suggestion of multiple persons, but were one Trinitarian, one could certainly accept that the "human side" of God communicated face to face. This might be an anachronism - Christmas being a long way off - but with God all things are possible.

Yeah I think some have interpreted it that way.

I think the issue with that interpretation is that it doesn't make sense in the context of the passage. Verses 7-11 are narrative background to the dialogue between YHWH and Moses from verse 12-22. There's no clear indication in the passage to suggest we should interpret the word 'face' in v11 metaphorically but literally in v20. In fact if that is the case its a very poor choice of words by the author. As the natural way to interpret 'face' in v11 is as physical presence as otherwise v20 makes no sense. Surely if exchange of conversation without physical presence were implied in v11 then wouldn't it be more natural for an author to use a different word than 'face' to avoid confusion with the literal sense used in v20?

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

I think it is the exchange of conversation that is intended here rather than physical presence. I don't see any suggestion of multiple persons, but were one Trinitarian, one could certainly accept that the "human side" of God communicated face to face. This might be an anachronism - Christmas being a long way off - but with God all things are possible.

Yeah I think some have interpreted it that way.

I think the issue with that interpretation is that it doesn't make sense in the context of the passage. Verses 7-11 are narrative background to the dialogue between YHWH and Moses from verse 12-22. There's no clear indication in the passage to suggest we should interpret the word 'face' in v11 metaphorically but literally in v20. In fact if that is the case its a very poor choice of words by the author. As the natural way to interpret 'face' in v11 is as physical presence as otherwise v20 makes no sense. Surely if exchange of conversation without physical presence were implied in v11 then wouldn't it be more natural for an author to use a different word than 'face' to avoid confusion with the literal sense used in v20?

The issue of using the same word in two different ways is exactly the problem in John, where theos seems to be rendered in two ways, if we accept what has been analysed for us.

To come face to face with something doesn't involve the idea of physical "face". I have no idea what the original words were that resulted in the "face to face" translation, but I agree it's an unfortunate choice given what is to follow.

The intention may have been to suggest that God simply appeared as a pillar of smoke. Of course we are told later that God descended in a cloud and "passed before Moses".

Again I don't see any split personalities here, though the sense of what is taking place is a challenge.

[tigger2]

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

(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):

I am unaware of any use of the term YHWH in the New Testament. As far as I know, the all the writers used the term theos, which is the Greek word for God, to refer to God the Father.

Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, Who, being in very nature God

Are you saying you support the Kenotic Doctrine?


Paul

Phil. 2:6 is almost universally mistranslated. The NT Greek words harpagmos, ison, are usually misused in context. Even theos and huparchon may be interpreted differently than in the typical Trinitarian rendering. And the word morphe (used in your quote as "very nature" is incorrect.

From my study:

Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe () that includes the idea of "essence" or "nature." They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus "was in the form [morphe] of God") because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the "absolute essence" and "full nature" of God!

However, as even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 991.html