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!

[dakoski]

[Replying to marco]

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

Sorry I don't follow the similarity with the use of theos in John - do you mean Tigger's arguments regarding translation of John 1:1?

Words can mean different things in different contexts - that's why I think looking at the context is key. I think the context makes it very difficult to interpret 'face-to-face' metaphorically.

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

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

If you were to tell me you spoke face-to-face with your friend 'Bob' today - I generally wouldn't interpret that as you having some apparition. If you said 'I came face-to-face with the numinous today' - most likely I would interpret that as an apparition.

I agree face-to-face can mean different things - but it can also mean in the sense of meeting a friend and speaking frankly with them the way we do regularly with people we know. I think Exodus 33:11 helps to clarify this is the intended meaning in which 'face' is being used:
'The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.'

In addition, the word translated 'face' in verse 11 is the same Hebrew word translated 'face' in verse 20. I think your interpretation is that some form of apparition without YHWH being physically present is equivalent to 'face-to-face' in verse 11.

But verse 20 specifically contradicts that interpretation as the same Hebrew word 'face' is something that Moses may not experience - if we're being consistent we would expect Moses to be denied an apparition of YHWH. But of course Moses does experience a non-physical apparition of YHWH in v20 and in more detail in chapter 34. What Moses cannot do is to see YHWH's physical presence and live (v20) - yet he experiences the physical presence of YHWH regularly (v11).

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

I'm sure Tigger would dispute the translation (its from the NIV) but I think its the most defensible interpretation of what Exodus 33 is teaching.

[marco]

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

From my study ........

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

Very, very simply, the text in John can be understood at several levels and the easiest one is to take the double mention of theos as just that. If this is not so, then it is a foolish ambiguity and does poor John no credit.

[tigger2]

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

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

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

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

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

You still have not examined even the first two of the Seven Lessons, and instead of taking it lesson by lesson and discussing it as I have asked, prefer instead avoidance and obfuscation.

Your characterization of the study as an assemblage of appeals to prior usage of nouns requiring indefinite articles, and an appeal to eminent figures of the time in their employment of language" is a misrepresentation.

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

You write: To render them different requires the acceptance of a substratum of "gods" which, I think, is of dubious validity. But this has been covered in detail in Lesson Two!

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

[tigger2]

[Replying to onewithhim]


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

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

I would rely more on the original Greek.

Hi, Monta,
I have used this site in the past, and, in fact, have a link to it in Lesson 6 (F) in my 'Seven Lessons for John 1:1c.'

[marco]

Sorry I don't follow the similarity with the use of theos in John - do you mean Tigger's arguments regarding translation of John 1:1?

Yes. Theos is translated first as God and then, when it appears immediately again, it seems to mean something else, according to Tigger. This is to accommodate an argument against the Trinity.

In Exodus we have the expression face to face and then the word face appears with a seemingly new meaning. However I can accept that "face to face" is a common phrase which need not pertain to the countenance of a person. It seems it is just an unfortunate rendering, else the inconsistency is silly.

Words can mean different things in different contexts - that's why I think looking at the context is key. I think the context makes it very difficult to interpret 'face-to-face' metaphorically.

Yes, context is of paramount importance in translating hieroglyphs, for instance. The context is a meeting of God and Moses. In Exodus 19:9 God said he would appear in a cloud, so we have established that God appears under cover. The phrase "as a man speaketh unto a friend" is presented to illustrate the closeness Moses enjoyed, and the expression "face to face" emphasises the closeness. I don't see why one has to call for a blatant inconsistency when we can read the text in this way.

If you were to tell me you spoke face-to-face with your friend 'Bob' today - I generally wouldn't interpret that as you having some apparition.

Yes, but that's hardly a fair comparison. We are talking about Moses and God, so apparition is very much on the cards.

But verse 20 specifically contradicts that interpretation as the same Hebrew word 'face' is something that Moses may not experience

And we avoid contradiction by my suggestion that face-to-face is simply a phrase indicating the close relationship between God and Moses.

[marco]

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

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

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

[onewithhim]

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

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

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

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

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

Amazingly, I don't think you got what Tigger was relating. John did not mean for the two "gods" in John 1:1 to be the same, and this view is ascertained by seeing where the DEFINITE article is placed. The definite article points to the ONLY MOST HIGH, ALMIGHTY God. NO article would require an indefinite article in English, for the clause to be understood by English speakers. Greek readers would already know that "the word was god," being without the definite article, would mean someone else besides THE god.....someone that was a powerful, important person, but not THE god.

"Union of two natures"??? That's not it. "The" god (in English we give Him a capital "G") is the Most High, from whom comes everything created, and who is the Source of all life. The "god" with no definite article (translated properly as "a god") and no indefinite article because Greek doesn't have them, is a separate important, powerful person. BOTH ARE "DIVINE." Both are divine though NOT EQUAL.

"Divine" is defined as: "of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god." (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)

John wanted to relate to his listeners the fact that "the Word" was with God Almighty, and he was to be distinguished apart from God, but was himself divine as well, even though not equal to God. (BTW, the angels are "divine" also.)

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine." (James Moffatt Translation) A very important, powerful being, but NOT God ("the" god, with definite article).



Not at all the same thing as what Trinitarians believe.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]


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

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

I would rely more on the original Greek.

What are your thoughts on the article?

[onewithhim]

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

Interesting article that seems to advocate polytheism. If one accepts angels and such other entities can be classified as gods, one may as well accept the Greek pantheon of gods and demigods.

Not at all. Polytheism is WORSHIPING MORE THAN ONE GOD, all as the highest, almighty god. Trinitarianism exemplifies polytheism, because it is the worship of THREE GODS who are ALL EQUAL.

John wrote that Christ (the Logos) was with the one true almighty god, and was a god (meaning an important, powerful person), though NOT EQUAL TO GOD ALMIGHTY.

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

It is the Trinity that smacks of polytheism.

[marco]

Amazingly, I don't think you got what Tigger was relating.

I shall regard this as an embedded compliment. But given you have summarised Tigger's thesis for me, I can confirm that I did, in fact, "get it."

It is interesting how whole religions have risen from a comma, missing or not; or from a simple article, missing or not. Does God REALLY work in that way? Those who spot the missing article get into heaven?

The Trinitarian view works in both cases.
The word was God is obviously in line with Trinity thinking.
And divine was the word points to the divine nature in the God-made-man. Man though he was, he had a divine nature. This explains the hypostatic union.

But my own view is that "theos" repeated means GOD.

The word was WITH GOD and GOD was the word.

This sentence has balance, power, and authority.

The word was with God and divine-ish, sort of, was the word. Ah, well, judge for yourself.