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
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #11liamconnor wrote: [Replying to post 1 by tigger2]
...
For that elusive third member, there are a few verses supporting his place within the trinity:
Acts 5: 3-4 refers to the H.S. as God.
The commission at the end of Matthew's gospel reads: "baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". It does not say "names of..." using the plural. This is what we call a triadic formula.
Here are some other triadic formulas to look up:
1 Cor. 12:4-6
2 Cor. 13.14
1 Peter 1.2
Hope that helps.
Looks like I'm going to have to give you two the Finger!tigger2 wrote: [Replying to post 4 by liamconnor]
Matt. 28:19
That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of name (authority, power) he says that it is used
in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....
A.T. Robertsons Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:
The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.
It shouldnt be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance (Matt. 28:19) of the word name being used with the holy spirit where it is used in the phrase beginning with in the name of... which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of authority, power, etc.
What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (name) used for Him in its most-used sense of personal name (as do the Father and the Son"hundreds of times).
In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian evidence for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian proofs! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity! ...
The finger of God that is! It is the finger of God that teaches you what the Holy Spirit truly is!
Research the phrase "the finger of God." you will become aware that the same phrase is used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. So do a study... The following information is from my research.
Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.
Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.
Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. That's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.
Paul
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #12[Replying to post 11 by Pierac]
I enjoyed that very much! I am still laughing.
Looks like I'm going to have to give you two the Finger!
The finger of God that is! It is the finger of God that teaches you what the Holy Spirit truly is!
I enjoyed that very much! I am still laughing.
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #13[Replying to post 10 by Pierac]
BJS wrote:
That is a mistranslation by Trinitarian translators. The word being translated is the NT Greek word morphe which means "form" "the external appearance."
Strong's Concordance:
morph: form, shape
Original Word: , ,
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morph
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Short Definition: form, shape, outward appearance
Definition: form, shape, outward appearance.
Morphe
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.
Thayer agrees that morphe is
"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young's Analytical Concordance (also compare the closely-related morphosis) and Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.]
It's easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced "nature" interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young's Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 "there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;" Is. 44:13 "makes it as the form [morphe] of a man;" Dan. 4:33 "my natural form [morphe] returned to me;" 5:6, 9, 10 "the king's countenance [morphe] changed;" 7:28 "[Daniel's] countenance [morphe] was changed." - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.
Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the "Long Ending" for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark's original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the "Long Ending" were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).
So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:
"he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]" - NAB.
"they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe]." - LB.
"he appeared in a different guise [morphe]" - NEB.
"he appeared in another shape [morphe]" - Douay.
"he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people" - NLV.
"Jesus did not look the same" - ETRV.
Mark 16:12 - "He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form." - People's New Testament Notes.
These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of "external appearance" not "essence" or "nature"!
So, what do you think? Is anyone actually going to respond to the actual questions in the OP?
BJS wrote:
Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, Who, being in very nature God
That is a mistranslation by Trinitarian translators. The word being translated is the NT Greek word morphe which means "form" "the external appearance."
Strong's Concordance:
morph: form, shape
Original Word: , ,
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morph
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Short Definition: form, shape, outward appearance
Definition: form, shape, outward appearance.
Morphe
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.
Thayer agrees that morphe is
"the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young's Analytical Concordance (also compare the closely-related morphosis) and Liddell and Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.]
It's easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced "nature" interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young's Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 "there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;" Is. 44:13 "makes it as the form [morphe] of a man;" Dan. 4:33 "my natural form [morphe] returned to me;" 5:6, 9, 10 "the king's countenance [morphe] changed;" 7:28 "[Daniel's] countenance [morphe] was changed." - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.
Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the "Long Ending" for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark's original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the "Long Ending" were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).
So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:
"he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]" - NAB.
"they didn't recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe]." - LB.
"he appeared in a different guise [morphe]" - NEB.
"he appeared in another shape [morphe]" - Douay.
"he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people" - NLV.
"Jesus did not look the same" - ETRV.
Mark 16:12 - "He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form." - People's New Testament Notes.
These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of "external appearance" not "essence" or "nature"!
So, what do you think? Is anyone actually going to respond to the actual questions in the OP?
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #14[Replying to post 13 by tigger2]
A simple question of the following verses from Phil. (since you seem to declare yourself as competent with the original language, let's drop Strong and what not and move on to the Greek)
, - 8 - , . - - , - - - - - - - .
how would you translate these verses in English in such a way to accurately describe the position you are taking?
Please be as ABSOLUTELY technical and precise as possible. State as precisely you can what theology Paul was stating which Exegetes and Scholars and Theologians all steeped in the Greek from the 2nd century onward have somehow missed.
A simple question of the following verses from Phil. (since you seem to declare yourself as competent with the original language, let's drop Strong and what not and move on to the Greek)
, - 8 - , . - - , - - - - - - - .
how would you translate these verses in English in such a way to accurately describe the position you are taking?
Please be as ABSOLUTELY technical and precise as possible. State as precisely you can what theology Paul was stating which Exegetes and Scholars and Theologians all steeped in the Greek from the 2nd century onward have somehow missed.
-
Checkpoint
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: CLEAR CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE
Post #15[Replying to post 13 by tigger2]
There is more wriggle room in possible meanings that can be extracted from this or that scripture or word.
What I think is that Trinity advocates are unlikely to directly answer those actual questions you posed in your OP.These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of "external appearance" not "essence" or "nature"!
So, what do you think? Is anyone actually going to respond to the actual questions in the OP?
There is more wriggle room in possible meanings that can be extracted from this or that scripture or word.
Post #16
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" is 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) is a tragic error.
Let's examine, one by one, what should be found in scripture (if the trinity were true) as listed above.
(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is shown as more than one person.
Here is what I have found when searching the scriptures for visions of God:
Even though God has caused a representation of himself to be "seen" in dreams and visions, we still dont know exactly what he "physically" looks like. Still, we should get some idea of the essential knowledge he wants us to know about himself from these inspired visions. We know that he always represents himself as a single person seated on a throne.
For example, at Ezekiel 1:5, 6, 26-28 we see God as he showed himself to Ezekiel in a vision.
"and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces..." - Ezek. 1:5-6, NIV.
Now if this had actually been the description of God, "multiple-oneness God" fans would have had the best proof ever for their passion: we would finally have some real evidence for a multiple-oneness God: a four-in-one God (a "Quadrinity")! But these four persons, each with four faces, represent Gods attendants (cherubim), not God. Each one represents 4 different aspects by its 4 faces. Can you imagine what would be said by trinitarians if God were similarly described as three persons each with three faces?!
The point is that God could (and did) show a clear representation of "multiple-oneness" in vision to his inspired prophet, but he never represented himself in such a manner!
Notice that each of these living creatures was in appearance like a man. And every aspect that differed from that of "a man" was carefully described.
Now notice the rest of the vision:
"Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a [single] throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a [single] figure like that of a [single] man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist [singular] up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of [Jehovah]." - Ezek. 1:26-28, NIV. Also see Ezekiel 8:2.
Remember, we just had a description of spirit persons each of whom looked like a man (except for having four faces). Now we have a description of another person who looks like a man. The differences from the appearance of a man are also noted but do not include anything that would make us think he was, in any way, anything more than a single person! Not three persons, not three heads, not three faces, etc. (In fact, nowhere in the entire Bible is the word "three" associated with a description of God!)
This simply would not be if God were truly three persons! God is a single person, the Father alone, Jehovah.
Now lets see Daniels vision of God:
"the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head [singular] was white like wool. His throne [singular] was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze." - Dan. 7:9, NIV.
Notice that, again, he looks like a single person.
And then,
"one, like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days [seated on the throne] and was led into his presence." - Dan. 7:13, NIV.
So we see a single person seated on Gods throne and another person (the Messiah) being led into Gods presence.
Now lets see the Apostle Johns vision which parallels Daniels vision:
"At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper.... In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures.... Day and night they never stop saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty... [and] You are worthy, our Lord and God, ... for you created all things, and by your will they were created.... Then I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides.... Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain.... He came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne." - Rev. 4:2, 3, 6, 8, 11; 5:1, 6, 7, NIV.
Again we see a single person on the throne who is God Almighty (Jehovah). And, again, we see the Christ approach God on his throne. And we see this one on the throne again at Rev. 19:4.
"The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: Amen, Hallelujah! ["praise Jehovah "]" - NIV.
Another important vision of God is that of Stephen.
"But Stephen, full of Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Look, he said, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." - Acts 7:55, 56, NIV.
Again we see God (not "God the Father," or "the Father," but God) as a single person and Jesus as another person (not God, however). And never (in any vision, dream, etc.) do we see the "person" of the Holy Spirit! God is the Father alone - a single person - Jehovah.
God simply has not revealed himself in clear, undisputed scripture as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than through generalizations, "mystery" solving, and allegorical interpretations which allow a reader to find whatever he is looking for). And the very first Christians (up into the second century at least) did not understand God in any other way.
If God were three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his Prophets and inspired scripture writers.
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" is 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) is a tragic error.
Let's examine, one by one, what should be found in scripture (if the trinity were true) as listed above.
(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is shown as more than one person.
Here is what I have found when searching the scriptures for visions of God:
Even though God has caused a representation of himself to be "seen" in dreams and visions, we still dont know exactly what he "physically" looks like. Still, we should get some idea of the essential knowledge he wants us to know about himself from these inspired visions. We know that he always represents himself as a single person seated on a throne.
For example, at Ezekiel 1:5, 6, 26-28 we see God as he showed himself to Ezekiel in a vision.
"and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces..." - Ezek. 1:5-6, NIV.
Now if this had actually been the description of God, "multiple-oneness God" fans would have had the best proof ever for their passion: we would finally have some real evidence for a multiple-oneness God: a four-in-one God (a "Quadrinity")! But these four persons, each with four faces, represent Gods attendants (cherubim), not God. Each one represents 4 different aspects by its 4 faces. Can you imagine what would be said by trinitarians if God were similarly described as three persons each with three faces?!
The point is that God could (and did) show a clear representation of "multiple-oneness" in vision to his inspired prophet, but he never represented himself in such a manner!
Notice that each of these living creatures was in appearance like a man. And every aspect that differed from that of "a man" was carefully described.
Now notice the rest of the vision:
"Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a [single] throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a [single] figure like that of a [single] man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist [singular] up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of [Jehovah]." - Ezek. 1:26-28, NIV. Also see Ezekiel 8:2.
Remember, we just had a description of spirit persons each of whom looked like a man (except for having four faces). Now we have a description of another person who looks like a man. The differences from the appearance of a man are also noted but do not include anything that would make us think he was, in any way, anything more than a single person! Not three persons, not three heads, not three faces, etc. (In fact, nowhere in the entire Bible is the word "three" associated with a description of God!)
This simply would not be if God were truly three persons! God is a single person, the Father alone, Jehovah.
Now lets see Daniels vision of God:
"the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head [singular] was white like wool. His throne [singular] was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze." - Dan. 7:9, NIV.
Notice that, again, he looks like a single person.
And then,
"one, like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days [seated on the throne] and was led into his presence." - Dan. 7:13, NIV.
So we see a single person seated on Gods throne and another person (the Messiah) being led into Gods presence.
Now lets see the Apostle Johns vision which parallels Daniels vision:
"At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper.... In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures.... Day and night they never stop saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty... [and] You are worthy, our Lord and God, ... for you created all things, and by your will they were created.... Then I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides.... Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain.... He came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne." - Rev. 4:2, 3, 6, 8, 11; 5:1, 6, 7, NIV.
Again we see a single person on the throne who is God Almighty (Jehovah). And, again, we see the Christ approach God on his throne. And we see this one on the throne again at Rev. 19:4.
"The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: Amen, Hallelujah! ["praise Jehovah "]" - NIV.
Another important vision of God is that of Stephen.
"But Stephen, full of Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Look, he said, I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." - Acts 7:55, 56, NIV.
Again we see God (not "God the Father," or "the Father," but God) as a single person and Jesus as another person (not God, however). And never (in any vision, dream, etc.) do we see the "person" of the Holy Spirit! God is the Father alone - a single person - Jehovah.
God simply has not revealed himself in clear, undisputed scripture as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than through generalizations, "mystery" solving, and allegorical interpretations which allow a reader to find whatever he is looking for). And the very first Christians (up into the second century at least) did not understand God in any other way.
If God were three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his Prophets and inspired scripture writers.
Last edited by tigger2 on Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #17
[Replying to post 16 by tigger2]
The second point asked for was:
(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."
Using Concordances for the KJV (Strong's and Young's Concordances) and the NASB (New American Standard Concordance of the Bible, Lockman Foundation 1981) I have found absolutely no scriptures which use the word "three" in describing God.
Isn't the word "three" at least as important as the word "one' (which is used for God in scripture) for the knowledge of the God whom we must worship in truth (Jn 4:24) - -that is, if the trinity doctrine were actually true?
Not only is the word "three" never used in conjunction with God anywhere in the Holy Scriptures (which simply could not be if God were really a "trinity"!), but it isnt even as scripturally important as many other numbers ("one," "seven," "twelve," for example)!
There are "very few traces of three in the cultus and the religious conceptions of the Israelites .... This relative rarity of a connexion between three and religious notions, which prevails in the OT, should not be [supplied] from other sources. The thunder call, Hear, O Israel, Jahweh (the?) one (Dt 6:4, cf. Is 41:4 44:6 48:12 ), drowns the voice of those who refer us to the triads of gods that were adored by the Babylonians, Assyrians, (Anu, Bel, and Ea, etc. ...), and other nations of antiquity. .... But the original meaning of the OT text must not be modified to suit either heathen parallels or later stages in its own development." - pp. 565, 566, Vol. 3, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (trinitarian), ed., Hendrickson Publ. (trinitarian), 1988 printing.
"Although three has widely been thought a sacred number [by trinitarians, of course], specifically religious uses of it in the Bible seem to be relatively few." - p. 687, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of the New Testament (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.
If there were even hints of a trinity to be found in Scripture, the one word we would regularly see with religious significance would be "three" [see the trinitarian definitions of the trinity doctrine in the opening statement above]. The fact that it is relatively insignificant throughout Scripture should be enough in itself to refute any idea of a trinity!
The second point asked for was:
(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."
Using Concordances for the KJV (Strong's and Young's Concordances) and the NASB (New American Standard Concordance of the Bible, Lockman Foundation 1981) I have found absolutely no scriptures which use the word "three" in describing God.
Isn't the word "three" at least as important as the word "one' (which is used for God in scripture) for the knowledge of the God whom we must worship in truth (Jn 4:24) - -that is, if the trinity doctrine were actually true?
Not only is the word "three" never used in conjunction with God anywhere in the Holy Scriptures (which simply could not be if God were really a "trinity"!), but it isnt even as scripturally important as many other numbers ("one," "seven," "twelve," for example)!
There are "very few traces of three in the cultus and the religious conceptions of the Israelites .... This relative rarity of a connexion between three and religious notions, which prevails in the OT, should not be [supplied] from other sources. The thunder call, Hear, O Israel, Jahweh (the?) one (Dt 6:4, cf. Is 41:4 44:6 48:12 ), drowns the voice of those who refer us to the triads of gods that were adored by the Babylonians, Assyrians, (Anu, Bel, and Ea, etc. ...), and other nations of antiquity. .... But the original meaning of the OT text must not be modified to suit either heathen parallels or later stages in its own development." - pp. 565, 566, Vol. 3, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (trinitarian), ed., Hendrickson Publ. (trinitarian), 1988 printing.
"Although three has widely been thought a sacred number [by trinitarians, of course], specifically religious uses of it in the Bible seem to be relatively few." - p. 687, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of the New Testament (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.
If there were even hints of a trinity to be found in Scripture, the one word we would regularly see with religious significance would be "three" [see the trinitarian definitions of the trinity doctrine in the opening statement above]. The fact that it is relatively insignificant throughout Scripture should be enough in itself to refute any idea of a trinity!
Post #18
[Replying to post 17 by tigger2]
In challenge (A) above we find that All the visions and dreams in all scripture which show God, show him as one person only, and in challenge (B) we discover that the word "three" is never used in describing God anywhere in clear, undisputed scripture.
Third:
(C) Please find a clear, direct, undisputed scriptural statement equivalent to 'Jesus is the Christ' or "YHWH is the Father" (which really are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declares:
'YHWH is the Son,' or 'YHWH is the Firstborn,' or, 'YHWH is the Messiah (or "Christ"), or any other equally clear, undisputed statement (or personal name) that 'Jesus is YHWH' (the only God according to scripture).
This challenge, (C) above, is mostly confined to the OT Scriptures, since it requires use of the only personal name of God: YHWH (transliterated JEHOVAH " Ps. 83:18, KJV or "Jehovah" - Ex. 3:15, ASV; NEB; MLB; LB; KJIIV and MKJV; Byington; Youngs; and Darby or Yahweh " Ex. 3:15, AT; JB; NJB; World English Bible).
God is named YHWH, which is rendered in most English Bibles as "LORD" (all capitals), 'Yahweh,' and/or 'Jehovah.' The KJV uses 'JEHOVAH' at Ps. 83:18, but 'LORD 'in nearly all the other 6000+ places it is found in the Hebrew manuscripts.
There is no other God but YHWH (Is. 45:5, 45:21; 46:9; Ps. 83:16-18).
There are clear direct, undisputed statements that YHWH is the Father (e.g., Isaiah 64:8 "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." - ASV).
There are a number of personal names in scripture which mean "God is YHWH" (Elijah); "YHWH is God" (Joel).
But more important, there are a number of personal names in scripture which mean "YHWH is the Father" (e.g., Abijah; Abia; Joab). These names are also clear, direct undisputed statements of who YHWH, the only God, is: the Father.
So my scriptural challenge here, (C), is to
Please find a clear, direct, undisputed scriptural statement which is equivalent to 'Jesus is the Christ' or 'YHWH is the Father' (which really are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declares:
'YHWH is the Son,' or 'YHWH is the Firstborn,' or, 'YHWH is the Messiah (or "Christ"), or any other equally clear, undisputed statement (or personal name) that 'Jesus is YHWH' (the only God according to scripture).
Yes, it would most likely be found in the OT, but that is where the scriptures are which we have referred to! The OT is, of course the largest part of the Bible and is the only scripture known to Jesus and his followers during his lifetime on earth.
Nevertheless, it could still be found in personal names in the NT (as it was in the OT), since the only uses of Gods personal name found in still-existing NT manuscripts are in personal names and the phrase Hallelujah (Praise Jehovah.):
Some of the names in the NT which contain God's personal name: Uriah; Abijah ('The Father is Jehovah') NKJV, ASV; RSV, NRSV, JB, etc.; Jehoshaphat; Jehoram; Uzziah; Hezekiah; Josiah; Jeconiah; Ananias ['Jehovah is Gracious'] - "a common Jewish name, the same as Hananiah." - Today's Dictionary of the Bible, (Ananias, 'high priest at Jerusalem, A.D. 60' - Young's) - Acts 23:2; 24:1.
So people (including a high priest) were still being given personal names which had YHWH's personal name as part of their meaning in NT times. Also 'Elijah' (which means God is Jehovah) is used 30 times in the NT.
And in Luke 1:5 Zechariah; and Abijah NKJV, ASV; NASB; RSV; NRSV; JB; etc. This is the name of one of the 24 priestly divisions and named by Luke as such in the NT in connection with Zechariah the priest, John the Baptist's Father. This priestly division of Abijah (which means 'The Father is Jehovah') existed until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
Therefore, there is no reason why personal names, even in the NT, should not have had the meaning of "The Son is YHWH" or the "Holy Spirit is YHWH" (just as so many were named "The Father is YHWH"). Except of course, the obvious one:
No Christian or Jew believed such a thing!
There are no such statements or meanings of personal names in any of the scriptures!
The one true Most High God simply has not revealed himself in any scriptural vision, representation, or dream as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than by generalizations, "mystery" solving, allegorical interpretations, or disputed translating of trinitarian theologians). And the very first Christians (up to the second century A.D. at least) did not understand God in any other way.
If God were truly three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his prophets and inspired scripture writers.
In challenge (A) above we find that All the visions and dreams in all scripture which show God, show him as one person only, and in challenge (B) we discover that the word "three" is never used in describing God anywhere in clear, undisputed scripture.
Third:
(C) Please find a clear, direct, undisputed scriptural statement equivalent to 'Jesus is the Christ' or "YHWH is the Father" (which really are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declares:
'YHWH is the Son,' or 'YHWH is the Firstborn,' or, 'YHWH is the Messiah (or "Christ"), or any other equally clear, undisputed statement (or personal name) that 'Jesus is YHWH' (the only God according to scripture).
This challenge, (C) above, is mostly confined to the OT Scriptures, since it requires use of the only personal name of God: YHWH (transliterated JEHOVAH " Ps. 83:18, KJV or "Jehovah" - Ex. 3:15, ASV; NEB; MLB; LB; KJIIV and MKJV; Byington; Youngs; and Darby or Yahweh " Ex. 3:15, AT; JB; NJB; World English Bible).
God is named YHWH, which is rendered in most English Bibles as "LORD" (all capitals), 'Yahweh,' and/or 'Jehovah.' The KJV uses 'JEHOVAH' at Ps. 83:18, but 'LORD 'in nearly all the other 6000+ places it is found in the Hebrew manuscripts.
There is no other God but YHWH (Is. 45:5, 45:21; 46:9; Ps. 83:16-18).
There are clear direct, undisputed statements that YHWH is the Father (e.g., Isaiah 64:8 "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." - ASV).
There are a number of personal names in scripture which mean "God is YHWH" (Elijah); "YHWH is God" (Joel).
But more important, there are a number of personal names in scripture which mean "YHWH is the Father" (e.g., Abijah; Abia; Joab). These names are also clear, direct undisputed statements of who YHWH, the only God, is: the Father.
So my scriptural challenge here, (C), is to
Please find a clear, direct, undisputed scriptural statement which is equivalent to 'Jesus is the Christ' or 'YHWH is the Father' (which really are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declares:
'YHWH is the Son,' or 'YHWH is the Firstborn,' or, 'YHWH is the Messiah (or "Christ"), or any other equally clear, undisputed statement (or personal name) that 'Jesus is YHWH' (the only God according to scripture).
Yes, it would most likely be found in the OT, but that is where the scriptures are which we have referred to! The OT is, of course the largest part of the Bible and is the only scripture known to Jesus and his followers during his lifetime on earth.
Nevertheless, it could still be found in personal names in the NT (as it was in the OT), since the only uses of Gods personal name found in still-existing NT manuscripts are in personal names and the phrase Hallelujah (Praise Jehovah.):
Some of the names in the NT which contain God's personal name: Uriah; Abijah ('The Father is Jehovah') NKJV, ASV; RSV, NRSV, JB, etc.; Jehoshaphat; Jehoram; Uzziah; Hezekiah; Josiah; Jeconiah; Ananias ['Jehovah is Gracious'] - "a common Jewish name, the same as Hananiah." - Today's Dictionary of the Bible, (Ananias, 'high priest at Jerusalem, A.D. 60' - Young's) - Acts 23:2; 24:1.
So people (including a high priest) were still being given personal names which had YHWH's personal name as part of their meaning in NT times. Also 'Elijah' (which means God is Jehovah) is used 30 times in the NT.
And in Luke 1:5 Zechariah; and Abijah NKJV, ASV; NASB; RSV; NRSV; JB; etc. This is the name of one of the 24 priestly divisions and named by Luke as such in the NT in connection with Zechariah the priest, John the Baptist's Father. This priestly division of Abijah (which means 'The Father is Jehovah') existed until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
Therefore, there is no reason why personal names, even in the NT, should not have had the meaning of "The Son is YHWH" or the "Holy Spirit is YHWH" (just as so many were named "The Father is YHWH"). Except of course, the obvious one:
No Christian or Jew believed such a thing!
There are no such statements or meanings of personal names in any of the scriptures!
The one true Most High God simply has not revealed himself in any scriptural vision, representation, or dream as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than by generalizations, "mystery" solving, allegorical interpretations, or disputed translating of trinitarian theologians). And the very first Christians (up to the second century A.D. at least) did not understand God in any other way.
If God were truly three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his prophets and inspired scripture writers.
Post #19
[Replying to post 18 by tigger2]
The fourth request for clear undisputed evidence of a trinity (or Jesus being 'equally God') asked for in the OP:
"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 declaring "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.)"
You could add "God, the Christ," "God, the Messiah," "God, the Firstborn," or any other term used exclusively for Jesus. But, surely, if the trinity were true, we would find the term "God, the Son" used equally as often as "God, the Father"!
Using a Bible concordance (Strong's, Young's, or an on-line concordance will do) and looking under "Son," you will find exactly zero uses of "God the Son."
Jesus is never called "God, the Son"!
The fourth request for clear undisputed evidence of a trinity (or Jesus being 'equally God') asked for in the OP:
"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 declaring "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.)"
You could add "God, the Christ," "God, the Messiah," "God, the Firstborn," or any other term used exclusively for Jesus. But, surely, if the trinity were true, we would find the term "God, the Son" used equally as often as "God, the Father"!
Using a Bible concordance (Strong's, Young's, or an on-line concordance will do) and looking under "Son," you will find exactly zero uses of "God the Son."
Jesus is never called "God, the Son"!
Post #20
[Replying to post 19 by tigger2]
The fifth request for undisputed, clear, repeated evidence of a trinity (or that a person other than the Father is equally God with him) as requested in message #1 was:
(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."
Again, when one searches through a good concordance ("spirit" or "holy"), he finds that there is never an instance of 'God, the Holy Spirit' to be found in scripture! Nor any other clear, undisputed, repeated evidence that the HS is equally God.
To be Continued
The fifth request for undisputed, clear, repeated evidence of a trinity (or that a person other than the Father is equally God with him) as requested in message #1 was:
(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."
Again, when one searches through a good concordance ("spirit" or "holy"), he finds that there is never an instance of 'God, the Holy Spirit' to be found in scripture! Nor any other clear, undisputed, repeated evidence that the HS is equally God.
To be Continued
