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 dont obviously require you to think it is impressive. I would much prefer that you actually examine the study and then think and respond to what is actually there.

I read, I understood and I answered. You may well have covered theos as meaning a divine being such as an angel but, as I say, this is contentious. It seems obvious that when we have - with God - and immediately after, - God was the word - it takes a huge assumption to believe that the word theos carries a different meaning. Yes, yes, I read your piece about the articles but it is an appeal not a proof. The hard fact is that we have incredibly close repetition. Why would there be a different meaning? Does John indulge in puns?

And it is perfectly possible that the positioning and the placement of theos does have a meaning - that of emphasis, perhaps. You deny this. In speech:
The word was with God and God, indeed, was the word makes perfect sense - more sense I think than the translation of theos as "a god".

If you really dont want (or are unable) to discuss them in detail, please just dont answer at all.

[onewithhim]

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 ........

We are moving into the realm of absurdity when we imagine that the search for God depends on the number of hours we are prepared to sit with a lexicon and an appropriate grammar book.

Ya know?......Jehovah's Witnesses are "d***** if they do and d***** if they don't"! They are always being accused of not being able to think for themselves, they are brainwashed, they just parrot what the WTS tells them, etc., etc. Then when a JW shows that he is not just taking anyone's word for it, but he studies intensely for himself, he is criticized for that!

I commend tigger and everyone else who researches and finds out things for themselves!

[marco]

Not at all. Polytheism is WORSHIPING MORE THAN ONE GOD, all as the highest, almighty god.

Allow me to disagree. Polytheism is a belief in many gods and they can all have different ranks. Zeus, for example, was the king god. Your qualification, using the superlative, does not apply to the definition. I suspect you would like it to.

Trinitarianism exemplifies polytheism, because it is the worship of THREE GODS who are ALL EQUAL.

Hmmm. The Trinitarian sees only ONE God. There are three persons in the one God.

Why are you unable to accept that "god" was just a title for important, powerful persons, including human judges and rulers? To call Jesus "a god" is not equating him with the Father, Almighty God.

It is the Trinity that smacks of polytheism.

As a fairly neutral observer, may I disagree again. The Trinity, as defined by its upholders, is a monotheistic concept. The belief you advocate, with many gods, is simple polytheism. As for my inability to accept that "god" is some honorary title, I have dipped into Sumerian and discovered this is in fact the case. But that further persuades me that you are advocating polytheism, as were the Sumerians.

[tigger2]

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 ........

We are moving into the realm of absurdity when we imagine that the search for God depends on the number of hours we are prepared to sit with a lexicon and an appropriate grammar book.

Ya know?......Jehovah's Witnesses are "d***** if they do and d***** if they don't"! They are always being accused of not being able to think for themselves, they are brainwashed, they just parrot what the WTS tells them, etc., etc. Then when a JW shows that he is not just taking anyone's word for it, but he studies intensely for himself, he is criticized for that!

I commend tigger and everyone else who researches and finds out things for themselves!

Wow! Thanks, I'm not used to that.

[Monta]

[Replying to dakoski]


This sounds strange but I think John picks up on this and similar passages in the Hebrew Scriptures when he says in John 1:18
'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.' //

That's a rather strange translation or did you reword it?

[onewithhim]

Not at all. Polytheism is WORSHIPING MORE THAN ONE GOD, all as the highest, almighty god.

Allow me to disagree. Polytheism is a belief in many gods and they can all have different ranks. Zeus, for example, was the king god. Your qualification, using the superlative, does not apply to the definition. I suspect you would like it to.

Trinitarianism exemplifies polytheism, because it is the worship of THREE GODS who are ALL EQUAL.

Hmmm. The Trinitarian sees only ONE God. There are three persons in the one God.

Why are you unable to accept that "god" was just a title for important, powerful persons, including human judges and rulers? To call Jesus "a god" is not equating him with the Father, Almighty God.

It is the Trinity that smacks of polytheism.

As a fairly neutral observer, may I disagree again. The Trinity, as defined by its upholders, is a monotheistic concept. The belief you advocate, with many gods, is simple polytheism. As for my inability to accept that "god" is some honorary title, I have dipped into Sumerian and discovered this is in fact the case. But that further persuades me that you are advocating polytheism, as were the Sumerians.

Nope. Jesus spoke of the fact that even men are called "gods" (John 10:34-36; Psalm 82:1) and the Apostle Paul stated what everyone knew:

"Even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are MANY 'gods' and many 'lords,' there is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are...." (I Corinthians 8:5,6)

Was the Apostle Paul a "polytheist"? Was Jesus?

[marco]

If you really dont want (or are unable) to discuss them in detail, please just dont answer at all.

I have done you the courtesy of reading your laboured propositions, termed patronisingly as lessons here, and I have expressed my opinion in the way that I choose. I believe you are wrong in your interpretation that theos means different things, when the words constitute rhetorical repetition.

Given that I have attempted to point out the deficiencies in your line of argument it is odd you should suggest that I don't want to discuss. As for my competence in reading what you've written, I have spent a large part of my life discussing grammatical niceties in a variety of languages, so your list of irrelevant nouns hardly perplexes me.

Let us leave it there. I will take it that theos means God and stays God second time round, which is almost certainly what John thought.

[marco]

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 ........

We are moving into the realm of absurdity when we imagine that the search for God depends on the number of hours we are prepared to sit with a lexicon and an appropriate grammar book.

Ya know?......Jehovah's Witnesses are "d***** if they do and d***** if they don't"!

I applaud erudite research. I said that it would be absurd if, to find God, one had to work through grammatical channels and check nuances in the meanings of foreign words. To do justice to Homer or any ancient text, such study is essential. But the absurdity comes when the end product is to believe in God. He is surely more accessible.

[marco]

Was the Apostle Paul a "polytheist"? Was Jesus?

Jesus was exercising clever escapology to avoid the charge of blasphemy. The gods in the Psalm he quoted are metaphorical gods in that man was created by God in his own likeness and in a poetic sense, people are the sons of God.

This has nothing to do with divinity. When you want to summon up evidence it can readily be found somewhere in Scripture. As Shakespeare says in The Merchant of Venice: The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Your gods are minor divinities and this IS polytheism.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to dakoski]


This sounds strange but I think John picks up on this and similar passages in the Hebrew Scriptures when he says in John 1:18
'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.' //

That's a rather strange translation or did you reword it?

That was reworded!

Even the King James doesn't butcher the verse that bad. It says: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18, KJV)


Being "in the bosom of the Father" is just a poetic way of saying that the Son was very dear to the Father.


This verse refutes any erroneous thinking that the Son is God.