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!

[onewithhim]

How significant is it that no trinity apologist has answered any of the eight challenges in the 3.5 years they have been posted here?

I will answer ALL of your 8 points - which are NOT difficult to answer from Scripture.

FIRST, I need YOU to give me Biblical proof that everything must be explicitly mentioned in Scripture.
This is a standard that even Sola Scripturists do not dare hold to.

So, basically what you are saying is that I can say that the Bible strongly indicates that smoking is a dirty activity and we should not do it, but then you say that the Bible doesn't specifically state that we should refrain from smoking cigarettes....therefore it must be alright to smoke. Is that about right?


I would, anyway, like to make the point that such a glaringly important change in doctrine---something so unfamiliar to the Jews in Jesus' day---that God is not one Person any more but THREE, must be succinctly and clearly spoken to the people so that there would be no confusion. They say that the Trinity is the most important doctrine of Christianity, and the bedrock of Christian faith. If this is true, then it should be crystal clear in the Bible. It should be spelled out plainly, with no room for doubt. It would have been SHOCKING to the Jews back then. They would not have parted with their belief that God is ONE Person very easily. But did Jesus ever indicate in any way that he was God? NEVER. Men have twisted the Scriptures in various places and made a mockery of pure worship. John 1:1 is a disaster, and misleads people because of the way important translation rules are ignored. John 8:58 is a mish-mash of mangled word order, an ungrammatical and syntactically strained sentence, and a strange, unsubstantiated idea that Jesus was calling himself God. It couldn't be further from the truth. Philippians 2:6 has been rectified many times by scholars that know that Paul was saying that Jesus never gave a thought to grasping something that he didn't have before---equality with God. No way.

There is absolutely ZERO proof that Jesus is God. It must be clear in order to be valid, in this most important case.


.

[MarysSon]

So, basically what you are saying is that I can say that the Bible strongly indicates that smoking is a dirty activity and we should not do it, but then you say that the Bible doesn't specifically state that we should refrain from smoking cigarettes....therefore it must be alright to smoke. Is that about right?

I would, anyway, like to make the point that such a glaringly important change in doctrine---something so unfamiliar to the Jews in Jesus' day---that God is not one Person any more but THREE, must be succinctly and clearly spoken to the people so that there would be no confusion. They say that the Trinity is the most important doctrine of Christianity, and the bedrock of Christian faith. If this is true, then it should be crystal clear in the Bible. It should be spelled out plainly, with no room for doubt. It would have been SHOCKING to the Jews back then. They would not have parted with their belief that God is ONE Person very easily. But did Jesus ever indicate in any way that he was God? NEVER. Men have twisted the Scriptures in various places and made a mockery of pure worship. John 1:1 is a disaster, and misleads people because of the way important translation rules are ignored. John 8:58 is a mish-mash of mangled word order, an ungrammatical and syntactically strained sentence, and a strange, unsubstantiated idea that Jesus was calling himself God. It couldn't be further from the truth. Philippians 2:6 has been rectified many times by scholars that know that Paul was saying that Jesus never gave a thought to grasping something that he didn't have before---equality with God. No way.

There is absolutely ZERO proof that Jesus is God. It must be clear in order to be valid, in this most important case.

Nope - you have it backwards.

YOU are the one who is demanding, in your 8 Points, that you need for the Bible to explicitly say the words "Jesus is God" before you will accept the teaching.
I'm not the one who is placing this flawed standard on Scripture - YOU are.

As for John 1:1 - it's only a "disaster" for those who are ignorant in Scriptural language. Otherwise " its very simple:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word WAS GOD.

This shows us TWO things:
a) The Word (the distinct Person of the Son) was WITH God the Father.
b) The Word (the distinct Person of the Son) WAS God along WITH the Father.

We know that the Word is the Son, because John goes on in the next 17 verses to describe WHO the Word is. He also refers to Him as the Light (v. 4-9) and states the He became FLESH and is the Son of the Father (v. 14).

Now " as for John 1:1, according to the Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana& Mantey, p. 147, this is a textbook example case of the Granville sharps Rule.
This rule states that when you have two nouns that are not proper names (such as Mark or John or Titus), and they are describing a person, and those two nouns are connected by the word 'and,' and the first noun has the article ('the') while the second does not, both nouns are referring to the same person.

Disaster, indeed . . .

As for John 8:58 - explain to me WHY the Pharisees tried to kill Jesus for saying, "Before Abraham was, I AM."
Explain what case they had for stoning Him . . .

[tigger2]

MarysSon clearly disregards all actual evidence which neutralizes trinitarian subjective reasoning.

"As for John 1:1 - it's only a "disaster" for those who are ignorant in Scriptural language."

This is totally ignorant statement.

How many times have the manufactured trinity 'proofs' been neutralized by the sunshine of actual careful scholarship (sometimes by trinitarian scholars themselves)?

John 1:1c is probably one of the worst examples of wishful interpretation by most trinitarian Bible translations and comments.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... _21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 11c-a.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.c ... -11.html

"Now " as for John 1:1, according to the Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana& Mantey, p. 147, this is a textbook example case of the Granville sharps Rule."

Wrong again. John 1:1 is not an example of the disputed "Sharp's Rule." There are a few examples from Paul's writings which some trinitarian translators choose one of two honest translations (and ignore the other) to get their 'proof' from Sharp's Rule.' There are other examples of this 'Rule' which even trinitarian translators have to translate in a non-trinitarian way.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... _29.html

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

As for the "I AM" so-called proof, even many trinitarian-translated Bibles show their denial of this by not even capitalizing the so-called name. Among others these include the KJV; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; etc.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

My advice would be to ignore this person until he can respond reasonably to the non-trinitarian answers to his disputed "proofs" from so many ignorant sources and then actually give rational responses to the OP CHALLENGES .

If ANYONE truly wishes to respond to the CHALLENGES in the OP, please do so. Please stop with off-subject posts.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 212 by MarysSon]

MarysSon clearly disregards all actual evidence which neutralizes trinitarian subjective reasoning.

"As for John 1:1 - it's only a "disaster" for those who are ignorant in Scriptural language."

This is totally ignorant statement.

How many times have the manufactured trinity 'proofs' been neutralized by the sunshine of actual careful scholarship (sometimes by trinitarian scholars themselves)?

John 1:1c is probably one of the worst examples of wishful interpretation by most trinitarian Bible translations and comments.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... _21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 11c-a.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.c ... -11.html

"Now " as for John 1:1, according to the Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana& Mantey, p. 147, this is a textbook example case of the Granville sharps Rule."

Wrong again. John 1:1 is not an example of the disputed "Sharp's Rule." There are a few examples from Paul's writings which some trinitarian translators choose one of two honest translations (and ignore the other) to get their 'proof' from Sharp's Rule.' There are other examples of this 'Rule' which even trinitarian translators have to translate in a non-trinitarian way.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... _29.html

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

As for the "I AM" so-called proof, even many trinitarian-translated Bibles show their denial of this by not even capitalizing the so-called name. Among others these include the KJV; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; etc.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

My advice would be to ignore this person until he can respond reasonably to the non-trinitarian answers to his disputed "proofs" from so many ignorant sources and then actually give rational responses to the OP CHALLENGES .

If ANYONE truly wishes to respond to the CHALLENGES in the OP, please do so. Please stop with off-subject posts.

posts #16 -20, 27, 193 (p. 20), 194.

I commented on part A of my Challenges in post 16 above. B is in post 17; C in 18; D in 19; E in 20; F in 27; and G in 193 (p. 20); and H in post#194. Please review these posts if you wish to comment on the Challenges of the OP.

[Checkpoint]

MarysSon clearly disregards all actual evidence which neutralizes trinitarian subjective reasoning.

"As for John 1:1 - it's only a "disaster" for those who are ignorant in Scriptural language."

This is totally ignorant statement.

How many times have the manufactured trinity 'proofs' been neutralized by the sunshine of actual careful scholarship (sometimes by trinitarian scholars themselves)?

John 1:1c is probably one of the worst examples of wishful interpretation by most trinitarian Bible translations and comments.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... _21.html
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 11c-a.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.c ... -11.html

"Now " as for John 1:1, according to the Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana& Mantey, p. 147, this is a textbook example case of the Granville sharps Rule."

Wrong again. John 1:1 is not an example of the disputed "Sharp's Rule." There are a few examples from Paul's writings which some trinitarian translators choose one of two honest translations (and ignore the other) to get their 'proof' from Sharp's Rule.' There are other examples of this 'Rule' which even trinitarian translators have to translate in a non-trinitarian way.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... _29.html

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

As for the "I AM" so-called proof, even many trinitarian-translated Bibles show their denial of this by not even capitalizing the so-called name. Among others these include the KJV; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; etc.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

My advice would be to ignore this person until he can respond reasonably to the non-trinitarian answers to his disputed "proofs" from so many ignorant sources and then actually give rational responses to the OP CHALLENGES .

If ANYONE truly wishes to respond to the CHALLENGES in the OP, please do so. Please stop with off-subject posts.

This post of yours has somehow been hijacked.

It showed nothing, so I pressed "quote", and hey presto, here it is on screen!

This thread appears to be out of order.

[brianbbs67]

What phantasm has occurred?

[Checkpoint]

What phantasm has occurred?

Which poster are you asking, and why did you ask that, anyway?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 212 by MarysSon]

I am sorry.....you do not understand or even pay attention to what the rules of translating Greek are, and you continue to push head-on along with the flawed methods of translating. John 1:1 says, in effect, "The Word was with God and the Word was A god, or, a divine being." John was trying to get across the fact that Jesus had been with God in the beginning of the creation, and that Jesus was a "god," or, simply, "an important, powerful individual." The term "god" means just that. We can tell who the only all-mighty God is by the use of the definite article before "God," as in the phrase "the Word was with [the] God." There is no definite article before the last "god" mentioned,.

At John 8:58 the rules are not applied either by translators who follow the rules just about everywhere else. It should read: "I existed before Abraham was ever born." That verse doesn't even match Exodus 3:14! Exodus 3:14 doesn't even say "I AM." Many translators write: "I WILL become whatsoever I will become"! The translation of John 8:58 is sloppy and mangled in the KJV and others.

These arguments cannot be ignored. Translation is a valid issue for discussion.


Final comment: It is true that the Bible never says anything about "God the Son," and that fact is important because "the Son of God" is a phrase that means something else entirely. God cannot be his own Father. So....you are of the opinion, based on your reasoning, that it's OK to believe that cigarette smoking is OK because nowhere in the Bible does it say that cigarettes are dirty. Therefore it must be that Jesus is God because nowhere does it say that he isn't. I don't understand that, because there are plenty of verses that say that Jesus is entirely dependent on God to say and do what he should say and do. (John 5:19) He said that the Father is "the only true God," not the Father and himself. (John 17:3) He said that the Father, Jehovah, anointed him and sent him to come to earth and spread the good news. If he was God he wouldn't need anyone to tell him anything or anoint him or send him. (Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18-21)

Jesus is not God and no one can legitimately show that he is.


.

[MarysSon]

[Replying to post 212 by MarysSon]

I am sorry.....you do not understand or even pay attention to what the rules of translating Greek are, and you continue to push head-on along with the flawed methods of translating. John 1:1 says, in effect, "The Word was with God and the Word was A god, or, a divine being." John was trying to get across the fact that Jesus had been with God in the beginning of the creation, and that Jesus was a "god," or, simply, "an important, powerful individual." The term "god" means just that. We can tell who the only all-mighty God is by the use of the definite article before "God," as in the phrase "the Word was with [the] God." There is no definite article before the last "god" mentioned,.

At John 8:58 the rules are not applied either by translators who follow the rules just about everywhere else. It should read: "I existed before Abraham was ever born." That verse doesn't even match Exodus 3:14! Exodus 3:14 doesn't even say "I AM." Many translators write: "I WILL become whatsoever I will become"! The translation of John 8:58 is sloppy and mangled in the KJV and others.

These arguments cannot be ignored. Translation is a valid issue for discussion.


Final comment: It is true that the Bible never says anything about "God the Son," and that fact is important because "the Son of God" is a phrase that means something else entirely. God cannot be his own Father. So....you are of the opinion, based on your reasoning, that it's OK to believe that cigarette smoking is OK because nowhere in the Bible does it say that cigarettes are dirty. Therefore it must be that Jesus is God because nowhere does it say that he isn't. I don't understand that, because there are plenty of verses that say that Jesus is entirely dependent on God to say and do what he should say and do. (John 5:19) He said that the Father is "the only true God," not the Father and himself. (John 17:3) He said that the Father, Jehovah, anointed him and sent him to come to earth and spread the good news. If he was God he wouldn't need anyone to tell him anything or anoint him or send him. (Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18-21)

Jesus is not God and no one can legitimately show that he is..

Sooooo, by your usage of the flawed New World Translation - I am assuming that you're a Jehovah's witness - which explains a LOT.
The perversions in the NWT are what is causing your confusion.

As I've already explained to you - it's not MY method of translating Greek. I'm simply parroting what the consensus of Greek scholarship before me has already determined. That's why I appealed to the Granville Sharp's Rule in my last few posts.

As for your NWT blunder that John 1:1 is "really" saying "... and the Word was A god" - this violates the 1st Commandment.

There is only ONE God - there are no other gods or "junior gods".
Can you explain how this isn't a violation of that Commandment??

[onewithhim]

[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.

.