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]

You differentiate between the Jehovah that can't be seen and the Jehovah that speaks to Moses face-to-face. I believe they are one and the same, and that "speaking face-to-face" here is one example of not being absolutely literal. How can there be TWO JEHOVAHS?

The reason I speak of the seen Jehovah who speaks face to face with Moses and others and the unseen Jehovah who no one can see and live - is because I think its very clear in Scripture. I think we should let the text speak for itself rather than let our presuppositions about what Jehovah is like to determine how we interpret a text.

Re: Exodus 33:11 being interpreted metaphorically I've replied in detail to Marco so much will overlap with that. But to sum up, the context is very clear here - verse 7-11 are a preface to verse 12-22 in Exodus 33. Therefore it would not make sense to use the phrase face to face mataphorically in verse 11 as narrative background to a dialogue between Moses and Jehovah which is primarily about Moses not being able to see the face of Jehovah and live.

If verse 11 is meant metaphorically then what background purpose does it serve to the dialogue in verse 12-22? Given that v12-22 are about Moses having a non-physical apparition of Jehovah - those verses are thus redundant and worse are misleading.

Jehovah can't be a "plurality," because Scripture states that "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deuteronomy 6:4) That should end the conundrum right there.

As I'm sure you're aware the Hebrew word for one isn't limited to numerical oneness. For example, the Hebrew word for one is also used of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24 that 'they will become one flesh'. Which isn't to say they become one human person but that they have a deep intimacy and union.

As for Moses speaking to Jehovah "face-to-face," according to Deuteronomy 34:10-12, Moses had a more direct, constant, intimate relationship with Jehovah than any prophet did up to the time that Christ was on Earth. As the Insight on the Scriptures book further says, "Jehovah's statement: 'Mouth to mouth I speak to him,' revealed that Moses had personal audience with God," though using angels who have constant access to God's presence (Matt.18:10). It might seem contradictory, but I can understand, for myself, that Jehovah could have such a personal conversation with Moses---unlike with any other man---that it could be said that they spoke as if face-to-face, even though the angels were involved.

Deuteronomy 34:10-12 on its own is inconclusive whether face to face should be taken literally/physically.

Number 12:8 is more conclusive that it is both close intimate fellowship but also that Moses sees Jehovah physically:
'With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?'

The Bible is also replete with other verses that speak of people like Abraham, Hagar, Jacob, Manaoh and his wife etc seeing Jehovah.

AS IF. Like the NASB puts it as well: "By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, AS seeing Him who is unseen." (Heb.11:27) The NAB says "as if" also, as does the Holy Trinity Version of the Catholic Bible; the KJV and Revised Standard Version, like the NASB, say "as." (Same thing.) So most of the Bibles I have looked at indicate that Moses endured because he had such a close relationship with Jehovah that it was "AS IF" he could see the invisible God.

I think if you read one verse before it explains how Moses was able to see the invisible God:
Hebrews 11:26-27
'26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the kings anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. '

Its because Moses has seen Christ - Jehovah who speaks to him face to face- that he makes the invisible Jehovah known - as he is the visible image of the invisible God.

You say "let the Scriptures speak for themselves." OK.....they say, "No man has seen God at any time." (John 1:18) They say, "[Jehovah said] No one can see me and live." (Exodus 33:20)

So how do you say that people can see God? Do you really think that a person can look at the One who made the Sun? He made the Sun and all the billions upon billions of stars! Try looking at just the mere Sun sometime! And if you were right up next to it??? It's laughable that anyone could think that a human being could literally see God!

I quoted to you Hebrews 11:27 and then you quoted it back without any explanation, using one of the very few Bible versions that actually say that Moses saw the invisible God. Most versions translate it the way I showed you in my post....."AS IF" Moses saw the One who is invisible. Anybody "seeing" God would be "seeing" Him with eyes of understanding. This is the meaning of the Scriptures, and this meaning conforms and melds with God's plain statement that no one can literally see him.

[dakoski]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Thanks onewithhim for the reply.

You say "let the Scriptures speak for themselves." OK.....they say, "No man has seen God at any time." (John 1:18) They say, "[Jehovah said] No one can see me and live." (Exodus 33:20)

So how do you say that people can see God? Do you really think that a person can look at the One who made the Sun? He made the Sun and all the billions upon billions of stars! Try looking at just the mere Sun sometime! And if you were right up next to it??? It's laughable that anyone could think that a human being could literally see God!

I agree the Scriptures say that no one can see Jehovah and live (Exodus 33:20) but they also say:
'Jehovah spoke to Moses face-to-face, just as one man would speak to another man.' (New World Translation)

Why accept v20 but not v11? There isn't a good argument for interpreting v11 metaphorically from the context of the passage - so the only rationale I seen is that the verse contradicts your understanding of Jehovah. When that happens (i.e. our view of Jehovah is contradicted by Scripture) the best thing is to modify our view of Jehovah in the light of Scripture.

I quoted to you Hebrews 11:27 and then you quoted it back without any explanation, using one of the very few Bible versions that actually say that Moses saw the invisible God. Most versions translate it the way I showed you in my post....."AS IF" Moses saw the One who is invisible. Anybody "seeing" God would be "seeing" Him with eyes of understanding. This is the meaning of the Scriptures, and this meaning conforms and melds with God's plain statement that no one can literally see him.

Yeah fair point, I was rushing off my response on this point before going to bed so reading it back it wasn't clear.

Let's again take the New World Translation for Hebrews 11:26-27:
'because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible'

This tells us several things:

1) Moses knew Christ (v26)

2) He saw the One who is invisible (v27)

(I'm not sure why you're pursuing the 'as if' translation when the New World Translation doesn't use that version)

Now this seems to be the standard way the invisible God is revealed to people:
John 1:18 - no one has seen the Father but the Son makes him known

Matthew 11:27'All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.'

Colossians 1:15 'The Son is the image of the invisible God'

John 14:9 'Jesus answered: Dont you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?'

These verses all show that the way to know the Father (Jehovah) is through the Son (i.e. the Christ). Exodus 33:11-22 shows very carefully the person who reveals the Father is another person who also bears the divine name Jehovah. The visible image of the invisible God is very clearly here called Jehovah.

Hope that clarifies what I meant better.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Thanks onewithhim for the reply.

You say "let the Scriptures speak for themselves." OK.....they say, "No man has seen God at any time." (John 1:18) They say, "[Jehovah said] No one can see me and live." (Exodus 33:20)

So how do you say that people can see God? Do you really think that a person can look at the One who made the Sun? He made the Sun and all the billions upon billions of stars! Try looking at just the mere Sun sometime! And if you were right up next to it??? It's laughable that anyone could think that a human being could literally see God!

I agree the Scriptures say that no one can see Jehovah and live (Exodus 33:20) but they also say:
'Jehovah spoke to Moses face-to-face, just as one man would speak to another man.' (New World Translation)

Why accept v20 but not v11? There isn't a good argument for interpreting v11 metaphorically from the context of the passage - so the only rationale I seen is that the verse contradicts your understanding of Jehovah. When that happens (i.e. our view of Jehovah is contradicted by Scripture) the best thing is to modify our view of Jehovah in the light of Scripture.

I quoted to you Hebrews 11:27 and then you quoted it back without any explanation, using one of the very few Bible versions that actually say that Moses saw the invisible God. Most versions translate it the way I showed you in my post....."AS IF" Moses saw the One who is invisible. Anybody "seeing" God would be "seeing" Him with eyes of understanding. This is the meaning of the Scriptures, and this meaning conforms and melds with God's plain statement that no one can literally see him.

Yeah fair point, I was rushing off my response on this point before going to bed so reading it back it wasn't clear.

Let's again take the New World Translation for Hebrews 11:26-27:
'because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, but not fearing the anger of the king, for he continued steadfast as seeing the One who is invisible'

This tells us several things:

1) Moses knew Christ (v26)

2) He saw the One who is invisible (v27)

(I'm not sure why you're pursuing the 'as if' translation when the New World Translation doesn't use that version)

Now this seems to be the standard way the invisible God is revealed to people:
John 1:18 - no one has seen the Father but the Son makes him known

Matthew 11:27'All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.'

Colossians 1:15 'The Son is the image of the invisible God'

John 14:9 'Jesus answered: Dont you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?'

These verses all show that the way to know the Father (Jehovah) is through the Son (i.e. the Christ). Exodus 33:11-22 shows very carefully the person who reveals the Father is another person who also bears the divine name Jehovah. The visible image of the invisible God is very clearly here called Jehovah.

Hope that clarifies what I meant better.

There IS a good argument for accepting Exodus 33:11 in a metaphorical sense, and I presented it. Otherwise verse 20 is meaningless. There's no reason to alter our view of Jehovah, not one. What I said makes the most sense to me.

"As seeing" means the same as "AS IF seeing."

Answering your list:

1) Moses didn't know Christ Jesus. The mystery of who the Messiah would be carried on right up to when Jesus was born on Earth. What Moses knew was the promise of the Messiah that was known from the time of Adam (Gen.3:15).

2) Moses "continued steadfast AS seeing ["AS IF" is the same thing] the One who is invisible." This verse does NOT say, in most versions, that Moses actually saw God.

Yes, I already agreed with you that the Son MAKES GOD KNOWN. He is not God, and neither is he Jehovah. To see Jesus was AS IF a person was seeing the Father, because he imitated the Father so closely. He had said that he didn't do anything unless he first saw the Father doing it...then he did it. (John 5:19)

There is nothing in MOST of the Bible that could be twisted, as you have apparently done, to say that Jesus is also Jehovah. You have taken a handful of verses, and, against the majority of thousands of verses tried to say that Jesus is Jehovah. The majority of verses clearly show that they are not the same. How can Jesus be "Jehovah" in the following verses?

A.) "The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1, Young's Literal Translation)

B.) "The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus], Because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind the broken of heart...." (Isaiah 61:1, Young's Literal Translation)

Both verses are attributed to Jesus as "my Lord" in Psalm 110, and the anointed one in Isaiah 61. (Acts 2:34,35; Luke 4:17-21) Jesus and Jehovah are clearly differentiated.

[tigger2]

dakoski wrote:

2) He saw the One who is invisible (v27)

(I'm not sure why you're pursuing the 'as if' translation when the New World Translation doesn't use that version)

A. He saw the One who is invisible is self-contradictory.

B. More literally Heb. 11:27 says for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. The word translated as is hos in the Greek text. This has more than one meaning, but if the translator really understood this clause in the sense of someone literally seeing the invisible, he would probably want to translate hos incorrectly as by: for he endured by seeing him who is invisible. But we rarely (if ever) see such a rendering.

Instead, we find the following meanings for hos in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament: how, in what way, as, like, after, while, approximately, when, while. The most space is devoted to hos used as comparatives:

1 Cor 3:15a: [be saved] as [hos] through fire; 1 Thess 5:2: [come] like [hos] a thief in the night.... - p. 509, Vol. 3, Eerdmans, 1994. Notice how, even when translated as it can mean like or as if.


C. The meaning of "He saw the one who is invisible" is disputed by many trinitarian scholars.

as though he saw him who is unseen. - AT.

as if he could see what is invisible - CEB.

as if he could see the God no one can see. - ERV.

as if he could actually see the invisible God. - GW.

As though he saw the invisible God - GNT.

as if he could see the God that no one can see. - ICB.

as if he saw the invisible one - LEB.

it seemed as though he could see God right there with him - TLB.

as though seeing the one who is invisible. - Mounce.

as if he were looking on the invisible God. - NAB (1970).

as if seeing the one who is invisible. - NAB (1991).

like someone who could see the Invisible. - NJB.

as if he could see the God that no one can see. - NCV.

as though he could see the one who is invisible - NET.

as though he saw him who is invisible - NRSV

[dakoski]

[Replying to onewithhim]

There IS a good argument for accepting Exodus 33:11 in a metaphorical sense, and I presented it. Otherwise verse 20 is meaningless. There's no reason to alter our view of Jehovah, not one. What I said makes the most sense to me.

"As seeing" means the same as "AS IF seeing." d'oh!

1) The problem is that the New World Translation doesn't render 33:11 AS IF seeing Jehovah face to face. It actually says: 'Jehovah spoke to Moses face-to-face' - 'AS IF' is your own addition which changes the meaning substantially. You offer no argument why you reject the rendering as it is in the New World Translation and all other translations.

2)There's a big difference between 'as if seeing face to face' and 'seeing face to face'. If you were to tell me you see face to face a dear friend who lives overseas. I'd interpret that as either you visit them often or you use a webcam with something like Skype or Face Time. I'd interpret it quite different if you said I speak to my friend who lives overseas as if face to face - I'd think you're speaking metaphorically.

3) The next bit of the verse again rules out your attempt to interpret the phrase 'face to face' metaphorically. Again from the NWT:
'just as one man would speak to another man.'
Do people tend to talk to each other in spiritual apparitions? Generally not I'd think, the point is clarifying that this is not a spiritual apparition 'face to face' literally means 'face to face' the way a man speaks with another man.

4) As I've said repeatedly the context makes your interpretation untenable. The point of v12-22 is that Moses may not see Jehovah face to face. If face to face meant spiritual apparition in v11 what is Jehovah meaning in v20 - that Moses may not have intimate fellowship anymore with Jehovah? Not at all the complete opposite.

The contrast between v11 Moses speaking face to face with Jehovah and v20 Moses not being able to see the face of Jehovah is to indicate that the unseen Jehovah is revealed only by the one who Moses and others see face to face yet also has the name Jehovah.

1) Moses didn't know Christ Jesus. The mystery of who the Messiah would be carried on right up to when Jesus was born on Earth. What Moses knew was the promise of the Messiah that was known from the time of Adam (Gen.3:15).

Again you're inserting words in. The NWT says:'because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.'

I don't see where you get from the verse Moses didn't know Christ from this verse. It doesn't say for the sake of the promise - it says 'for the reproach of the Christ'.

2) Moses "continued steadfast AS seeing ["AS IF" is the same thing] the One who is invisible." This verse does NOT say, in most versions, that Moses actually saw God.

Yes, I already agreed with you that the Son MAKES GOD KNOWN. He is not God, and neither is he Jehovah. To see Jesus was AS IF a person was seeing the Father, because he imitated the Father so closely. He had said that he didn't do anything unless he first saw the Father doing it...then he did it. (John 5:19)

You've misunderstood me, what I mean is that in seeing the Son (who also bears the name Jehovah - as we see in Exodus 33:11) it is as if seeing the Father. Which is exactly what Jesus says in John 14:9. Jesus is the one who makes the invisible God visible - as I showed with all those other verses. Is Exodus 33:11 then subverting that process of the Son revealing the Father? In the Old Testament then, the Father revealed the Father - but then in the New Testament he preferred the Son to reveal him instead?

There is nothing in MOST of the Bible that could be twisted, as you have apparently done, to say that Jesus is also Jehovah. You have taken a handful of verses, and, against the majority of thousands of verses tried to say that Jesus is Jehovah. The majority of verses clearly show that they are not the same. How can Jesus be "Jehovah" in the following verses?

A.) "The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalm 110:1, Young's Literal Translation)

B.) "The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me [Jesus], Because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind the broken of heart...." (Isaiah 61:1, Young's Literal Translation)

Both verses are attributed to Jesus as "my Lord" in Psalm 110, and the anointed one in Isaiah 61. (Acts 2:34,35; Luke 4:17-21) Jesus and Jehovah are clearly differentiated.

This is a strawman argument - you're arguing against Modalism (i.e. that Jesus and the Father are one numerical person). That's not a position Trinitarians hold. As I've shown in Exodus 33, Jehovah isn't one numerical person - so its perfectly consistent with my position that it says Jehovah speaks with Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Just as its perfectly consistent that it says the Son speaks with the Father in the New Testament.

There are lots of other Scriptures we can discuss showing that Jehovah is seen and contrasted with the unseen Jehovah - I'm happy to keep discussing them if you are.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 104 by tigger2]

A. He saw the One who is invisible is self-contradictory.

In the same way that John 14:9 is self-contradictory 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also' (from the NWT)?

B. More literally Heb. 11:27 says for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. The word translated as is hos in the Greek text. This has more than one meaning, but if the translator really understood this clause in the sense of someone literally seeing the invisible, he would probably want to translate hos incorrectly as by: for he endured by seeing him who is invisible. But we rarely (if ever) see such a rendering.

Instead, we find the following meanings for hos in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament: how, in what way, as, like, after, while, approximately, when, while. The most space is devoted to hos used as comparatives:

1 Cor 3:15a: [be saved] as [hos] through fire; 1 Thess 5:2: [come] like [hos] a thief in the night.... - p. 509, Vol. 3, Eerdmans, 1994. Notice how, even when translated as it can mean like or as if.


C. The meaning of "He saw the one who is invisible" is disputed by many trinitarian scholars.
as though he saw him who is unseen. - AT.

as if he could see what is invisible - CEB.

as if he could see the God no one can see. - ERV.

as if he could actually see the invisible God. - GW.

As though he saw the invisible God - GNT.

as if he could see the God that no one can see. - ICB.

as if he saw the invisible one - LEB.

it seemed as though he could see God right there with him - TLB.

as though seeing the one who is invisible. - Mounce.

as if he were looking on the invisible God. - NAB (1970).

as if seeing the one who is invisible. - NAB (1991).

like someone who could see the Invisible. - NJB.

as if he could see the God that no one can see. - NCV.

as though he could see the one who is invisible - NET.

as though he saw him who is invisible - NRSV

You've misunderstood my point - so I'll attempt to clarify.

I'm not arguing the Father (identified as Jehovah in Exodus) was seen face to face by Moses - clearly he wasn't (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18). But Moses saw another person also identified as Jehovah face to face (Exodus 33:11). It is in seeing Jehovah face to face that he sees the invisible God - the unseen Jehovah (i.e. the Father). Or if you prefer this rephrasing - because he sees the seen Jehovah face to face it is as if he sees the unseen Jehovah who no one may see and live.

Hebrews 11:26-27 shows that it is through his knowledge of the Christ that he sees the invisible God (NIV). But even if we interpret it 'as if he sees the invisible God' it has the same connotation that in knowing the Christ he knows the Father. Clearly the Christ is the seen Jehovah who Moses speaks face to face with as a man speaks with another man. It is the seen Jehovah who makes the invisible or unseen Jehovah known.

[dakoski]

[Replying to tigger2]

It took a lot of time and effort to examine all of John's writings, examine a number of Trinitarian-written Greek grammars, and discover the extremely important exceptions to the use of the definite article in NT Greek.

I have proved to myself that the meaning intended by John is not "the Word was God." But whenever I present my research in on-line discussions, it is never carefully examined. Even though I have cut my 50-page initial study down to a dozen pages to simplify it, it still doesn't get anyone willing to thoroughly examine it and give me some feedback.

Here is a link to one of my efforts at condensing my study:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... -a.htm...

As you sounded sad about no one reading your study, I thought I'd have a read. I have a few points that might be worth considering:

1) You spend a lot of time trying to assert that the omission of the definite article requires John 1:1 to be translated 'the Word was a god'. It was fun to read your argument and speculations about John's use of grammar. But the greatest weakness of it is that actually if John wanted to communicate that Jesus was divine but not God then all he needed to do was to use a perfectly good Greek word (theios) that would explain that.

Why would he have chosen to use the word theos (God) when clearly according to you he meant was theios? Wouldn't he want to be extra careful to make that clear to avoid risking his readers falling into idolatory?

2) There are lots of verses in the New Testament where the definite article is not used and yet it is specific: e.g. John 1:49 (' You are the king of Israel'), John 8:39, John 17:17, Romans 14:17, Galatians 4:25, Rev 1:20) which weakens your case further.

Therefore taken together I think your argument isn't persuasive.

[tigger2]

[Replying to tigger2]

It took a lot of time and effort to examine all of John's writings, examine a number of Trinitarian-written Greek grammars, and discover the extremely important exceptions to the use of the definite article in NT Greek.

I have proved to myself that the meaning intended by John is not "the Word was God." But whenever I present my research in on-line discussions, it is never carefully examined. Even though I have cut my 50-page initial study down to a dozen pages to simplify it, it still doesn't get anyone willing to thoroughly examine it and give me some feedback.

Here is a link to one of my efforts at condensing my study:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... -a.htm...

As you sounded sad about no one reading your study, I thought I'd have a read. I have a few points that might be worth considering:

1) You spend a lot of time trying to assert that the omission of the definite article requires John 1:1 to be translated 'the Word was a god'. It was fun to read your argument and speculations about John's use of grammar. But the greatest weakness of it is that actually if John wanted to communicate that Jesus was divine but not God then all he needed to do was to use a perfectly good Greek word (theios) that would explain that.

Why would he have chosen to use the word theos (God) when clearly according to you he meant was theios? Wouldn't he want to be extra careful to make that clear to avoid risking his readers falling into idolatory?

2) There are lots of verses in the New Testament where the definite article is not used and yet it is specific: e.g. John 1:49 (' You are the king of Israel'), John 8:39, John 17:17, Romans 14:17, Galatians 4:25, Rev 1:20) which weakens your case further.

Therefore taken together I think your argument isn't persuasive.

Since you have ignored so many of the most important parts of the study, I can't believe you read much of it.

I suppose it's too much to hope that you will be the first to actually examine Lesson A. carefully and reply to what was actually written there.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 108 by tigger2]

I read all of it - you've made a valiant attempt at backing up your case. But it just seems to me you've overplayed your hand. Why would John communicate that Jesus was divine in such a convoluted way? It makes more sense for him to use the word 'theios' if he was intending to communicate what you think he was.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 108 by tigger2]

I read all of it - you've made a valiant attempt at backing up your case. But it just seems to me you've overplayed your hand. Why would John communicate that Jesus was divine in such a convoluted way? It makes more sense for him to use the word 'theios' if he was intending to communicate what you think he was.

Ridiculous! I can't believe that you have read it since you make so many errors which I have corrected in the study.

You're not going to be the first to actually study Lesson A. and discuss it in detail, are you? Apparently we will never even get to Lesson B.