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!

[liamconnor]

I had promised to start another thread on N.T. Christology, but that seems a bit redundant.

I turn to 1st Cor 8:6

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.
2 aIf anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet bknown as he ought to know;
3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and done Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
(1Co 8:1-6 NAS)

The context is idolatry, one of the three stereotypical vices of pagans in the eyes of Jews (the other two were greed and fornication/sexual perversion).

Paul is opposing paganism with Jewish/Christian monotheism: "though there may be so called gods in heaven or on earth--as in fact there are many gods and many lords--". Paul acknowledges that there are many deities on the market, as it were. But he and the Corinthians know that they are all bankrupt.

Scholars have pondered why Paul uses the term "lords" along with "gods" and have attempted to discern a distinction. There is none; rather, he uses both terms to set himself up for his own Christological monotheism.

Now, above I noted that Jewish theology was primarily a matter of exegesis; reading the ancient declarations about God.

One major text was the Shema, Deut 6:4 4 a"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the bLORD is one!" a monotheistic formula repeated twice daily by observant Jews.

It is this formula which Paul has adapted for the purpose of setting forward Christological monotheism. We will notice all the terms are present in 1 Cor. 8:6

For us there is one God, the father,

from whom are all things and we for him,

and one Lord, Jesus Christ,

through whom are all things and we through him.

All the elements of the Shema are present. Paul has distributed the two titles for God between Jesus and the Father. the Father is given the term theos which translated the Hebrew elohim; Jesus is given kurios, which translated YHWH. And yet Paul makes it clear that this does not constitute a ditheism, for he retains the important numerical description of the Shema, one.

It should also be mentioned that the jewish God was believed to have created the world, and to have created it alone. He did not require assistance.

But in the N.T. this role is ascribed to Jesus (John 1, as well as 1 Cor. 8:6)

[liamconnor]

Here is another example of high Christology (i.e. Jesus is God), this time from Revelation.

One more, I remind everyone that Jewish/Christian theology was exegetically driven--they went to their sacred writings, rather than sat thinking about abstractions.

Isaiah 40-55 is chalk full of monotheistic declarations. Here are two texts from Isaiah

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God."
Isaiah 48:12 "I am he; I am the first, and I am the last".

In Revelation we find these descriptions (clear allusions to Isaiah) are shared by God and Christ

God says I am the Alpha and the Omega in 1:8

Christ says: I am....the first and the last (1:17; cf. 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this")

God says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (21:6

Christ says: I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (22:13).

[onewithhim]

The Philippian passage has come up a few times here, as well as certain "doctrines" derived from it.

There are some things that need to be remembered:

1) Paul wrote in koine Greek. It was not a sophisticated Greek. Thus the dictionary game is dangerous here.

2) Greek categories of thought were not employed until Christianity became dominated by Greek members. Thus language and categories which we find in the later fathers should not be imposed on the N.T., since the latter was written almost entirely by Jews.

3) Jewish thinking differs from Greek in two regards. Firstly, its theology is exegetically driven, rather than philosophically. Jews turned to their sacred text to find answers about God; Greeks employed logic.

4) Jewish theology is prominently "functional", of which the Greek opposite is "ontological". Greeks asked questions like "What is God?" And their answers were typically attributes, like "omniscient, incorporeal, omnipresent etc.". Jews asked "Who is God?" The question is relational. And to find the answer they, once again, looked to their sacred texts. Jews thought of God in terms of how he relates first, to Israel, and second to the world. YHWH is the God who redeemed Israel. YHWH is the God beside which there are no other Gods. YHWH is the God who created the universe. YHWH is sovereign over the universe and all its inhabitants.

Keeping this in mind, I turn to the Philippians passage, 2.5-11.

I provide the Greek, accompanied by a translation

5 - -,

Have this frame of mind among you, which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 -,

Who, being in the form of God, did not regard being equal with God as something to be held on to.

7 , -

But he emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in appearance as a man

8 - , .

He humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, and death of a cross.

9 - - ,

Therefore also God highly exalted him and bestowed upon him the name that is above every name

10 - - - - -

In order that, in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and of those upon the earth and of those under the earth;

11 - - .

And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.


Let's first apply a functional, rather than ontological hermeneutic.

It should be noted that the passage begins with "having this same mindset" or "attitude". Already we should be wary of imposing on this texts questions of Jesus' ontological "substance". We are being exhorted; it would be a very strange exhortation for Paul to encourage us to alter our "substances", since that is impossible.

Central to this passage is how we regard ourselves: note 2:3 which is functional--how we relate to one another! "Regarding one another as more important than himself". From this verse he offers Jesus as an example of this posture of humility.

Thus turning back to 2:6 "although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped/or held on to. (Augustine renders it "taken advantage of").

This verse has nothing to do with ontological equations. It is a moral example for the Philippians. Jesus forsook not a metaphysical attribute, but the dignity of being equal with God; all the comforts of the palace, so to speak--instead, he abandoned his throne and took up the posture of a servant--that is, as a man (since man's task in Jewish theology is to be God's servants). This posture of humility was so complete that, not only did he stoop so low as to be man before God, but even to be an executed slave before men. Truly, Jesus, though having rights to the dignity of God, regarded all as better than himself.

Now at this point in the Phil passage, I turn away from the distinction between ontological and functional categories, and towards our other hermeneutical principle: Jewish theology is driven by exegesis; and this includes Jewish Christian theology.

There are two principle monotheistic texts for Jews. One is the Shema of Deut 6.4.; the other is Isaiah 40-55. In isaiah 45:22-23 Isaiah anticipates a day when all the world will recognize Israel's God as the only God.

It reads: Turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness, a word that shall not return: To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

This passage is high monotheism: There is only one God; he alone deserves recognition and worship.

But in the Phil passage is precisely Jesus who is accredited this honor:

Jesus (whose very name includes the root of "salvation") is given the name which is above every name. But what name could that be for a Jewish Christian like Paul? It is not, as some here have thought, the name Jesus; he already had that name, and so did other men (Joshua of the O.T.).

The name Paul has in mind is "YHWH", God's covenantal name in the O.T.

We will notice the allusions to Isaiah, given above.

It is at the name of Jesus that "every knee should bow"...and "every tongue confess"...

confess what? That Jesus is Lord. The Greek term Kurios is the very same word used to translate the Hebrew YHWH. That is the name which Paul has in mind when he proclaims that Jesus has been given the name that is above all names.


Now, this does raise a problem: does this mean that Jesus was not God previously? Not at all. We come full circle to our distinction between ontological vs. functional theology.

The point is not that Jesus, post-resurrecton, acquired an ontology, a metaphysical attribute, which he lacked previously. The point Paul is making is that, always being God, now enjoys the prerogatives of YWHW in relation to the world. Having defeated death and sin and all that is rebellious to God in this world, Jesus now reigns on his father's throne, as Lord.

hope that helps.

(1) The meaning I mentioned was not gotten from a dictionary. It is the opinion of many Bible scholars.

(2) I don't credit the later fathers with much of anything. The great apostacy was already settling in at the end of the 1st century. When reading the early fathers, I'll go with Clement (30-100 A.D.) and Polycarp (65-155 A.D.), and about as far as Ignatius (30-107 A.D.) and then call it a day. (And his longer versions.) Justin Martyr was skidding off the path (110-165 A.D.), and after that I think the fathers are worthless.

(3) Greeks may have employed logic more than the average Jew, but their theology was ridiculous....as illogical as anything could be. Why Christian writers would adopt any of the Greek philosophy's names and titles of things is beyond my understanding. "Hades," "Tartarus," etc.....it just made it more confusing to their readers. Why not just write "the grave" (for Hades), and "spiritual darkness" instead of Tartarus?

(4) The Jews are to be commended for, originally, searching for "who is God?." They searched their scriptures, and, indeed, what is more important than the scriptures? We wouldn't know ANYTHING about the one true God if we didn't have the Bible. I don't agree with your version of Philippians 2:6, and I have already posted a very reasonable comment on that verse. "Grasped" and "seize" are words that other versions use instead of "hold on to," and those words have the meaning of obtaining something that one did not have beforehand.

And verse 11 says it all---everything Jesus did was to the glory of God, the Father, YHWH. YHWH GAVE Jesus his name and position. Jesus didn't have it to that degree before he came here, carried out his Father's will, and returned to heaven. Verse 9 states that it was because Jesus "was obedient as far as death" that he was exalted by God.

Augustine had some acceptable things to say, but, as I remember it, he also made some out-in-left-field statements. I think "taken advantage of" is one of those ideas. I'll go with what, for example, Dr. Jason BeDuhn says in his book Truth in Translation, pages 51-62, wherein he makes the point that "harpagmos," the word in question, has the meaning of "robbery" or "rape" (being a noun).....the verb form harpazo has the meaning of (1) snatch away, carry off; (2) seize hastily, snatch up; (3) seize, overpower; (4) captivate, ravish.

Every one of the related words has to do with the seizure of something not yet one's own.

Jesus is not the one true God, and Philippians does not insinuate such a thing. Jehovah (YHWH) gets the glory THROUGH Jesus, and everything Jesus did. Didn't you notice at the end of verse 11 that what Jesus did was "to the glory of God the Father"? Everyone seems to miss that completely. And you are, unfortunately, way off with this one.

Jesus himself said CLEARLY to his Father, Jehovah: "This is eternal life, that they may know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3, NASB) Jesus distinguished himself from God. "God" was someone other than himself.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 43 by onewithhim]

And verse 11 says it all---everything Jesus did was to the glory of God, the Father, YHWH. YHWH GAVE Jesus his name and position. Jesus didn't have it to that degree before he came here, carried out his Father's will, and returned to heaven. Verse 9 states that it was because Jesus "was obedient as far as death" that he was exalted by God.

Where does it say in verse 11 "the FAther, YHWH?" you have smuggled the name into the text. If that is a legitimate maneuver, then I shall play it: "every tongue confess that Jesus is YHWH, to the glory of God, who is the father, coeternal with the son."

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 43 by onewithhim]

And verse 11 says it all---everything Jesus did was to the glory of God, the Father, YHWH. YHWH GAVE Jesus his name and position. Jesus didn't have it to that degree before he came here, carried out his Father's will, and returned to heaven. Verse 9 states that it was because Jesus "was obedient as far as death" that he was exalted by God.

Where does it say in verse 11 "the FAther, YHWH?" you have smuggled the name into the text. If that is a legitimate maneuver, then I shall play it: "every tongue confess that Jesus is YHWH, to the glory of God, who is the father, coeternal with the son."

It doesn't need to. Paul, who wrote the letter to the Philippians, knew that the Father is Jehovah. Everybody knew that. The Jews looked at Jehovah [YHWH] as their God, as is evident throughout the Tanakh (the Old Testament). His name appears close to 7,000 times.

Where do YOU get the bravery to smuggle YHWH's name in there to say that Jesus is YHWH? What are you basing any of this on? The verse says that Jesus is Lord, not God.

The scriptures say that God MADE Jesus what he is:

"Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36, NASB)


[/b]

[hoghead1]

[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).

[tigger2]

[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).

As you said, Christ is presented as subordinate to God in many examples. But the "others" are generally probable mistranslations or misinterpretations. Your examples, for example are, upon careful examination, prime examples of both.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Not sure I quite follow you here. Could you explain a bit more, please?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Not sure I quite follow you here. Could you explain a bit more, please?

Scriptures which seem to identify Christ with God are usually explainable as mistranslations or misinterpretations.

Your example of John 1:1, when carefully analyzed, can be seen to be mistranslated as "and the Word was God." John 10:30 and :38 are usually translated correctly but are misinterpreted (Compare John 17:21, 22.)

[hoghead1]

[Replying to tigger2]

How did you arrive at John 1:1 being mistranslated?