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 post 110 by tigger2]

I've read all the way to lesson G - whether you believe that or not is inconsequential.

I didn't see that you addressed anywhere why John didn't use theios instead of theos - do you not think that was a significant omission? Or did I miss that part of your study?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 110 by tigger2]

I've read all the way to lesson G - whether you believe that or not is inconsequential.

I didn't see that you addressed anywhere why John didn't use theios instead of theos - do you not think that was a significant omission? Or did I miss that part of your study?

Your replies make it extremely difficult to believe that you actually read even Lesson A with any degree of understanding what was written there.

John does not use theios (an adjective - divine) in any of his writings. In fact, it may not have been used anywhere in the NT text. I do refer to it in my studies of the "Qualitative" interpretation of John 1:1c. however.

What does lesson A say about using the writings of the other NT writers as examples? Do you disagree, why or why not?

What does lesson A say about prepositional modifiers of theos? What examples were given of prepositional modifiers of theos?

Do you agree with what lesson A (and NT Grammars) says is the importance of prepositional modifiers of nouns such as theos?

Did you examine all Johns uses of theos intended for God (the Father) as requested in lesson A (link provided)?

What does lesson A say about all the uses of theos intended for God (not Jesus)? If you disagree with the Lesson A about this, explain why.

[dakoski]

[Replying to tigger2]

John does not use theios (an adjective - divine) in any of his writings. In fact, it may not have been used anywhere in the NT text. I do refer to it in my studies of the "Qualitative" interpretation of John 1:1c. however.

I tried to find again where you discuss theios and couldn't find it - could you provide a quote from it here?

With regards to your response:
1)Its not very persuasive to say its not used in John's writings - do you not think John was aware of the word? Do you not agree that theios better conveys the meaning of who you think Jesus is than theos? If not, why not?

2) Theios is used in the New Testament

Your replies make it extremely difficult to believe that you actually read even Lesson A with any degree of understanding what was written there.

I'm happy to read your writings and engage with the subject matter i.e. interpretation of John 1:1. You should be content that your blog post opens up a discussion.

But unfortunately I'm not really interested in the kind of discussion that you are intent on - i.e. discussing line by line the merit of your blog post. If I were to take a course at Tigger university and this was the assigned text then such a discussion might be appropriate.

Don't take that the wrong way, I think the post is interesting reading. But there are few blog posts that merit that level of discussion. So that's not meant in anyway as a slight on you or your writing.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 112 by tigger2]

tigger, I understand what you are asking for, and I have been asking the same thing ever since I started posting on forums such as this (more than 15 years ago). I am appreciative of the poster that admitted that such intensive scrutiny of a point is not what most people want to do. That is refreshing honesty.

I do hope there will prove to be people that do come along and want to take apart a verse in depth, and I hope they see your thread.

[Monta]

[Replying to onewithhim]

"tigger, I understand what you are asking for, and I have been asking the same thing ever since I started posting on forums such as this (more than 15 years ago). I am appreciative of the poster that admitted that such intensive scrutiny of a point is not what most people want to do. That is refreshing honesty."

I feel most of us come here to get various ideas from a broad spectrum of people of where they are at.
If something arouses our interest in a big way we'd go and buy a book or study material.
We are all biased to some extent and what suits me may not suit another person.
To do any good we can offer but not preach.

[dakoski]

[Replying to onewithhim]

tigger, I understand what you are asking for, and I have been asking the same thing ever since I started posting on forums such as this (more than 15 years ago). I am appreciative of the poster that admitted that such intensive scrutiny of a point is not what most people want to do. That is refreshing honesty.

I do hope there will prove to be people that do come along and want to take apart a verse in depth, and I hope they see your thread.

I think you've misunderstood my post - I'm very happy to discuss John 1:1 in depth as I said. It seems that Tigger is more interested in discussing his blog post in depth. I've commented on his article - which he hasn't really responded to either.

I think its a bit odd to refuse to discuss a passage (John 1:1) that has read by millions over about 2000 years. Yet demand to discuss line by line his blog post about that passage - which in all likelihood won't be read for thousands of years by millions. Its like refusing to discuss a passage from Dickens or Tolkein but demanding to discuss line-by-line a book review of that particular passage. Jesus had a similar thing to say to the Pharisees who were more interested in the teaching of men than the word of God.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

I have a question for both the trinitarian and the Jehovah witness.

Gen 1:26-27: vs. 26 says God declared to make man in his own image and according to His likeness. vs. 27 confirms He did.

First question for the trinitarian:
If God is a trinity of persons (three separate persons with separate wills, minds, etc, yet one in unity). Since we were made in His own image and likeness, why are you,me, and all of mankind not three separate persons with separate wills, etc, yet one in unity?

If one believes the scriptures teach a trinity of three separate persons of God, Gen 1:26-27 requires us to be made in the image and likeness of the trinity of three separate persons, with three separate wills and the ability to communicate with each other separately, and work with each other person of ourselves in unity, does it not?

So, why are we not made as a trinity if the scriptures are true (in which, I believe they are true)?

For the Jehovah witness:
Is God only Spirit or is He flesh also?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

tigger, I understand what you are asking for, and I have been asking the same thing ever since I started posting on forums such as this (more than 15 years ago). I am appreciative of the poster that admitted that such intensive scrutiny of a point is not what most people want to do. That is refreshing honesty.

I do hope there will prove to be people that do come along and want to take apart a verse in depth, and I hope they see your thread.

I think its a bit odd to refuse to discuss a passage (John 1:1) that has read by millions over about 2000 years. Yet demand to discuss line by line his blog post about that passage - which in all likelihood won't be read for thousands of years by millions. Its like refusing to discuss a passage from Dickens or Tolkein but demanding to discuss line-by-line a book review of that particular passage. Jesus had a similar thing to say to the Pharisees who were more interested in the teaching of men than the word of God.

But Tigger hasn't refused to discuss John 1:1. He has already thought it through and presented his viewpoint in his blog. Now he wants to get your (and others') viewpoint on what he has concluded about John 1:1. I agree with him that that is a very good and desirable way (for some, like myself and tigger) to conduct a discussion. Take his points one-by-one. I do that with other peoples' arguments.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

I have a question for both the trinitarian and the Jehovah witness.

Gen 1:26-27: vs. 26 says God declared to make man in his own image and according to His likeness. vs. 27 confirms He did.

First question for the trinitarian:
If God is a trinity of persons (three separate persons with separate wills, minds, etc, yet one in unity). Since we were made in His own image and likeness, why are you,me, and all of mankind not three separate persons with separate wills, etc, yet one in unity?

If one believes the scriptures teach a trinity of three separate persons of God, Gen 1:26-27 requires us to be made in the image and likeness of the trinity of three separate persons, with three separate wills and the ability to communicate with each other separately, and work with each other person of ourselves in unity, does it not?

So, why are we not made as a trinity if the scriptures are true (in which, I believe they are true)?

For the Jehovah witness:
Is God only Spirit or is He flesh also?

God = God Almighty, YHWH, the Most High, the Father (whom Jesus called "the only true God")

All life and power come from God, YHWH. He is bigger than the universe. How could He be flesh?

So my answer is: God is a Spirit (John 4:24)

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 119 by onewithhim]

How does your comment address my question?