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!

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 149 by Checkpoint]

QUOTE:Everyone can see what you did with 1 John 5:20 in your post #132. UNQUOTE

YES, they can see what the scripture says. So what is your point?

You quoted the scripture correctly in your post #129, as follows:

The Bible says "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20).

Then you wrote this in #132:

It plainly says "In Him that is true is Jesus Christ, the One True God"

That is not what that verse says, and it is not what it means.

My point was, what you wrote there was either a misquote or a misinterpretation.

I have looked at some of your other posts and you apparently cannot argue your position with the support of multiple supporting scriptures scripture and a clear explanation of why the scriptures support your view.

That is what you must do, since you are the one making claims challenging the OP, and I am responding to you, not initiating.

It is up to you to debate the scriptures I have brought and will bring, and attempt to show how my use of them is in error.

That is precisely what you have not done, with my verses or with those of others.

It is what I have done with your 1 John 5:20.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 151 by Checkpoint]
You quoted the scripture correctly in your post #129, as follows:

Quote:
The Bible says "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20).


Then you wrote this in #132:

Quote:
It plainly says "In Him that is true is Jesus Christ, the One True God"


QUOTE: is not what that verse says, and it is not what it means.

My point was, what you wrote there was either a misquote or a misinterpretation. END QUOTE

MY RESPONSE: It is not a quote, but an interpretation. It is the correct interpretation. For you to simply say it is not correct, doesnt establish the reason for your position. You need to argue your position to prove it is not correct. Thus far, You have not done so.



Quote:

I have looked at some of your other posts and you apparently cannot argue your position with the support of multiple supporting scriptures scripture and a clear explanation of why the scriptures support your view.


END QUOTE: This what you must do, since you are the one making claims challenging the OP, and I am responding to you, not initiating.

It is up to you to debate the scriptures I have brought and will bring, and attempt to show how my use of them is in error.

MY RESPONSE: dont what you are reading because I have done exactly that. On the other hand, once engaged, you have a responsibility to respond to my position, in which I believe I have clearly made in opposition to the trinity doctrine and all in opposition that Jesus Christ is God, the one and only God we will ever see.


QUOTE: That is precisely what you have not done, with my verses or with those of others.
It is what I have done with your 1 John 5:20. END QUOTE.

MY RESPONSE: You may have quoted scriptures and declared Jesus is not God, but offering a challenge to that, you have not done anything much other than to deny it is true and the interpretation is wrong. That is not a defense. You must explain why something i have said is in error. It is not acceptable to simply say, Im wrong, youre right.

NEW CHALLENGE: If Jesus Christ is the one true God, then this fact is a direct challenge to the subject of their post. This is my argument against the trinity doctrine. If I have understood the other posts from JWs (in which, there are many in this post) one of your proofs Jesus cannot be God is he cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven because He is flesh and blood. To support the JW claim, they quote 1 Cor 15:50.

I have provided many scriptures shoeing the resurrected Christ was no longer a body of flesh and blood (meaning, like our physical bodies that are sustained by the flow of blood through our physical system). Christ shed His blood of His perishable body on the cross and was resurrected with an imperishable and glorified body. Now, here is my point. Using the scripture sighted by JWs (1 Cor 15:50) and the following four verses for a total review of what Paul said - see 1 for 15:50-54

Quote from NASB: I for 15:50-54
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed" 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: Death has been swallowed up in victory.

Now, id your argument is Christ is flesh and blood, therefore not capable to inherit the kingdom of God, then you might want to take notice, that the resurrected Christ was resurrected imperishable. This means; if a body of flesh and blood is perishable, and if Christ was raised imperishable (see vs.52), He no longer has a body of flesh and blood. BOOM, there goes your argument! All of us will be made in the image and likeness of the imperishable and glorified body of God just like the promise God made in Gen 1:26 and fulfillment in Gen 1:27. Jesus Christ is the only ONE man was made in the image and likeness of in the beginning (Adam and Eve were also created with a body of flesh and blood, in the sinless and innocent image of Jesus Christ, born of a woman. I the and, second Adam, who became, in the glory of His resurrected body of flesh, became a life giving Spirit because He is God; God is the only life giving Spirit. Therefore when we are resurrected in Christ, we are now, IN THE END, restored to the kingdom of God imperishable and forever made in the image and likeness of the resurrected Spirit of Life: Jesus Christ.

What say you?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to tigger2]

or, it means exactly what the word of God says! Jesu Christ is the One True God.

That is exactly what the word of God does not say.

The only reason to ignore the obvious is to not believe what God says.

You are a prime example of that in how you deal with this issue, and how you have treated verses I and others have cited or quoted for you.

The Father of Jesus is God Himself,

Yes, the Father, whom Jesus said is "the only true God"; whom Jesus said is "my God and your God".

coming in the flesh; Jesus Christ.

The logos became flesh, became something God was not and cannot be, human.

Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God in human form as the Son of Man.

He is not God the Son, he is not God the Father, he is not the one true God.

He remains "the man Christ Jesus", as the "one mediator between God and man".

A trinitarian scholar is a scholar of a post biblical doctrine that is errant, leading away from who God truly is; Jesus Christ. [/quote

Maybe you meant "anti-trinitarian scholar"?

Therefore, it is no wonder someone that doesn't believe the word of God actually means what He says, would look at other probabilities that are possibilities, leading away form the stated truth.

Some of your posts are a good illustration of that.

Somehow, folks just cannot recognize that God, who is Spirit, could or would Father Himself in His creation of Humanity, that was created in His own image and according to His likeness.

That is not fathering Himself.

If He did that (and He did), He would then be His own father in His own creation that was created for Him and through Him as the firstborn before all creation. This is the difference between God and man: with God, all things are possible.

His own father He is not.

Yes, with God all things are possible, but only some things happen or have happened.

With man all things are possible when a vivid imagination comes into play.

[B Bob]

[Replying to Checkpoint]


Is it possible Adam and Eve were created in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of Jesus Christ? If not, why not?

Is it possible that we will be made in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of the resurrected Jesus Christ? If not, why not?

Is it possible that we are still living on the sixth day of God's creation? If yes, why? If no, why?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 152 by B Bob]

What say you?

I say this post of yours is helpful, in that you have made your position clearer to me than it was before, when you wrote:

my position, in which I believe I have clearly made in opposition to the trinity doctrine and all in opposition that Jesus Christ is God, the one and only God we will ever see.

To clarify further, I have three questions:

Are you saying the Father is not the true God, only the Son is?

Are you saying the Father and Son are the one true God and are one person, not two persons?

What is your view on the Holy Spirit...where does he/it fit into your anti-trinitarian position?


I also say I am not a JW, and have never been one.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

Is it possible Adam and Eve were created in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of Jesus Christ? If not, why not?

No.

There was then no Jesus Christ.

Is it possible that we will be made in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of the resurrected Jesus Christ? If not, why not?

Yes.

Is it possible that we are still living on the sixth day of God's creation? If yes, why? If no, why?

No.

The sixth day of God's creation is long past, and ended without man.

Yes.

I am familiar with the scenario you intend with your question, having adopted it myself some years ago for a while.

It is an interesting one that is possible but is highly unlikely.

It is little more than speculation, in my opinion.

[B Bob]

[Replying to Checkpoint]

Is it possible Adam and Eve were created in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of Jesus Christ? If not, why not?

No.

There was then no Jesus Christ.

From who's point of view? The reader's or the author's view? You gave the reader's point of view, and from the reader's point of view, you would be correct. However the story is written from the author's point of view. In this case, the author is God and His view is like no other. Can you think of anything from God's point of view that is not in the past tense? God is before all things and beyond all things. From God's view, His works were finished from the foundation of the world (Heb 4:3), yet, in the fullness of time (from our view), His works are not finished. This explains why Jesus said " But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." (John 5:17), yet, His Father finished His works and entered His eternal rest according to Gen 1-2:4. Jesus was working and had yet to fulfill His work; die for our sins. Yet from God's view (author's view), Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

The picture (view) that is emerging was not lost on Paul. He wrote that God spoke of things that were not, as if they were. In support of his statement Paul gave the example of what God said to Abraham " I have made (it is already done) you a father of many nations, yet the following verses say "In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."

So, my point is, even though Jesus Christ had not yet come into the world from our view, from God's view, He very well could have made man in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, God did exactly that in the beginning; man was brought forth (born) in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of Jesus Christ who walked the earth and died for our sins. Like Christ, man was subjected to temptation to sin and death because of sin (from God's view). From man's view (the reader of God's word), Jesus was made in the image and likeness of us, born of a woman, subjected to temptation to sin and death because of sin. Therefore, the story goes, Jesus, the son of man, was the lamb of God who died for our sins even though He was sinless and blameless in the sight of God.

In consideration that God is the author of the Bible and like all authors, wrote the book according to His own view? So I ask, from the view of the author of the book we call the Bible, is it possible God made man (in the beginning), in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of Jesus Christ, the son of man, conceived by the Holy Spirit, being born of a woman?

Is it possible that we will be made in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of the resurrected Jesus Christ? If not, why not?

Yes.

This is much easier for the reader to see because the author revealed the mystery to us in the resurrection. You might notice that the author viewed this as how must become; made again (born again) in the sinless image and likeness of Jesus Christ (AGAIN is the implication). If, as you agree, we are going to be made in the sinless and innocent image and likeness of Jesus Christ in the resurrection, then you must acknowledge we will forever be made in the image and likeness of the firstborn from the dead. Right?

So my point and question is the same. Given all of these things are true and spoken to us through God's own words. Is it possible and likely that God who will make us in the image and likeness of the firstborn from the dead in the resurrection (1 John 3:2) also made us in the image and likeness of the firstborn over all creation? (Col 1:18).

If yes, would it be suitable to you that God, in the beginning made us in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ (who is the beginning and the firstborn over all creation) and, in the end, God made us (from God's view, but not yet in the fullness of time of our view) in the image of Jesus Christ (who is the end and the firstborn from the dead?

Is it possible that we are still living on the sixth day of God's creation? If yes, why? If no, why?

No.

The sixth day of God's creation is long past, and ended without man.

Yes.

I am familiar with the scenario you intend with your question, having adopted it myself some years ago for a while.

It is an interesting one that is possible but is highly unlikely.

It is little more than speculation, in my opinion.

I want to explain this further by looking at the scripture from God's viewpoint, but this post is already to lengthy.

I also would prefer you to chew on my takes and to get your thoughts on what I just posted before going further.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 154 by B Bob]


You asked:

Is it possible that we are still living on the sixth day of God's creation? If yes, why? If no, why?

To which I answered, in part:

No.

The sixth day of God's creation is long past, and ended without man.

That answer contains an error I must correct.

The sixth creation day did not end without man, for it was on that day God created man.

So, my bad!

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 157 by B Bob]

I also would prefer you to chew on my takes and to get your thoughts on what I just posted before going further.

That is what I am in the process of doing.

Thanks for presenting these thoughts, this scenario, in the way you did; well done!

What you say is, in principle if not in actuality, quite possible.

I may have more to say on this later. We will see.

In the meantime, please answer the questions I posed to you in my post #155.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to tigger2]

or, it means exactly what the word of God says! Jesu Christ is the One True God.

That is exactly what the word of God does not say.

The only reason to ignore the obvious is to not believe what God says.

You are a prime example of that in how you deal with this issue, and how you have treated verses I and others have cited or quoted for you.

The Father of Jesus is God Himself,

Yes, the Father, whom Jesus said is "the only true God"; whom Jesus said is "my God and your God".

coming in the flesh; Jesus Christ.

The logos became flesh, became something God was not and cannot be, human.

Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God in human form as the Son of Man.

He is not God the Son, he is not God the Father, he is not the one true God.

He remains "the man Christ Jesus", as the "one mediator between God and man".

A trinitarian scholar is a scholar of a post biblical doctrine that is errant, leading away from who God truly is; Jesus Christ. [/quote

Maybe you meant "anti-trinitarian scholar"?

Therefore, it is no wonder someone that doesn't believe the word of God actually means what He says, would look at other probabilities that are possibilities, leading away form the stated truth.

Some of your posts are a good illustration of that.

Somehow, folks just cannot recognize that God, who is Spirit, could or would Father Himself in His creation of Humanity, that was created in His own image and according to His likeness.

That is not fathering Himself.

If He did that (and He did), He would then be His own father in His own creation that was created for Him and through Him as the firstborn before all creation. This is the difference between God and man: with God, all things are possible.

His own father He is not.

Yes, with God all things are possible, but only some things happen or have happened.

With man all things are possible when a vivid imagination comes into play.

Actually, there ARE some things that God cannot do.

He cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
He cannot die.
He cannot make a mountain that is too high for him to climb over.


So it is not so far-fetched to think that he cannot be his own Son.