clear challenges to 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. (underlined 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.

………………………………....

Clear 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 and frequently 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? (This not only would not have been allowed, but the Jews would have stoned them to death.)
………………………………...................

(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!

I believe any objective observer would admit that the answers to these simple scriptural challenges (A-H above) should be abundantly, clearly, indisputably available if the trinity (or ‘Jesus is God’) worshipers are correct.

To look for rare instances of unclear, disputed scriptures which have to be interpreted to fit a trinitarian concept (developed after the death of the last Apostle and the completion of Scripture) and convince yourself that they are "proofs" seems to me to be a tragic error.

God has always existed as God and, therefore, His people should have always known who He was and worshiped him in truth.

To believe that God withheld this information from his people (or made it something to be interpreted from unclear references) from the beginning (and throughout all Scriptures) seems to be a tragic error.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 9 by brianbbs67]

Please read Gen. 18:22.

Even the highly trinitarian NIVSB admits in its footnote for Gen. 18:2 -

"three men. At least two of the 'men' were angels (see 19:1; see also note on 16:7). The third may have been the Lord himself..."

[And the NIVSB footnote on Gen. 16:7 referred to above says:] ".... It may be, however, that as the Lord's personal messenger who represented him and bore his credentials, the [single] angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One who sent him" - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the trinitarian ISBE admits:

"Gen 18-- Abraham intercedes with the angel for Sodom" - p. 133, Vol. 1, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 printing.

Oh no, I read it, 18:22 like you.

[jgh7]

In relation to (A), could you explain the beginning of John:

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

-----

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

[shnarkle]

In relation to (A), could you explain the beginning of John:

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

-----

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

John doesn't actually say "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God". The word became incarnate in the form of a man named Jesus, but the man Jesus didn't exist prior to his conception.

John also doesn't begin his introduction with, "In the beginning was God". Those who composed the creed understood why when they wrote "One in being with the Father". It is the word that is. It is the word that exists eternally, but apart from the word, God doesn't exist. Paul's letters predate John's gospel by decades and John was probably familiar with Paul's writings which makes sense when one considers that Paul sees the Father as the origin of existence, e.g "of whom are all things". The fact is that God can't be both, but the word can "be" God whereas God can't be what God originates. God can't be if God is the origin of being. Paul points out that Christ is the means of everything that exists, e.g. "by whom are all things". This solves the problem.

John can say that the word was God, but he wouldn't say that God was the word. He could say, God became the word, or the word came from God, or the word originates in God.

Being is an attribute, perhaps a divine attribute, but it isn't God. As the origin of being, God transcends being. However, being owes its existence to its origin, therefore its origin is found within itself. They are distinguishable which is what John is saying when he says, "and the word was with God". To then say, "the word was God" would be a conflation of what he had just distinguished. So John is showing the relationship between the two. It's sort of like eternal being be-ings God into existence, but this isn't really accurate. It's more like being emanates from God, and is manifested eventually through the word into the world. However God is not what emanates from him. Another example would be God's glory. We read that God shares his glory with no one, yet Christ is the glory of God. The glory emanates from God, yet the origin of God's glory isn't glorious. The rays that emanate from the sun originate in the sun, but in order for them to be rays of light they must travel away from the source. The source of that light is not what is traveling at the speed of light, but what is producing the light that is speeding away from it.

The light that hits the earth is from the sun, but it isn't the sun itself. There is a relationship between the two. This is what John is pointing out.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

Have you done any (and I mean ANY) research at all on the language John uses?

I have posted on this point many times here is a link if you would care to read it.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#867695

[polonius]

In relation to (A), could you explain the beginning of John:

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

-----

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

RESPONSE:

A more correct translation of what you wrote would be:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.

In the beginning suggests creation in time, that is, not eternal . The same as "the first born of all creation."

[shnarkle]

In relation to (A), could you explain the beginning of John:

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

-----

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

RESPONSE:

A more correct translation of what you wrote would be:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.

There's nothing in the Greek to suggest inserting an indefinite Article. Here's just a small sample of translations;

New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Contemporary English Version
In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

Good News Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

New Heart English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

In the beginning suggests creation in time, that is, not eternal .

Not really. "In the beginning was..." suggests the creation of time along with all the rest of creation. The word exists eternally, but there's no need to fret or start twistisng scripture to agree with some Arian doctrine. Even Paul disitnguishes between God and Christ in 1 Cor. 8:6. John distinguishes between the word and God in "the word was with God". The word is the subject, but the word isn't a god because the gods are created and creation doesn't occur until the third verse. The word isn't a thing; it isn't anything.

Just to be fair here, in verse 14, there is no definite Article modifying father, and yet most translators insert one to fit their doctrine, but hey this is perfectly acceptable, right? Why shouldn't we all be able to twist scripture to fit our respective doctrines?

New International Version
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

New Living Translation
So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father's one and only Son.

English Standard Version
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Berean Study Bible
The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Berean Literal Bible
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

New American Standard Bible
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

King James Bible
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Christian Standard Bible
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Contemporary English Version
The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him the complete gifts of undeserved grace and truth have come down to us.

Good News Translation
The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

International Standard Version
The Word became flesh and lived among us. We gazed on his glory, the kind of glory that belongs to the Father's unique Son, who is full of grace and truth.

NET Bible
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory--the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

New Heart English Bible
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of The Only Begotten of The Father, full of grace and truth.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The Word became human and lived among us. We saw his glory. It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth.

New American Standard 1977
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

King James 2000 Bible
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

American King James Version
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

American Standard Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Darby Bible Translation
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth;

English Revised Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Webster's Bible Translation
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Weymouth New Testament
And the Word came in the flesh, and lived for a time in our midst, so that we saw His glory--the glory as of the Father's only Son, sent from His presence. He was full of grace and truth.

World English Bible
The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Young's Literal Translation
And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[jgh7]

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

Have you done any (and I mean ANY) research at all on the language John uses?

I have posted on this point many times here is a link if you would care to read it.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#867695

There is a big debate over it among scholars. I take it you interpret it more to say that Jesus was a divine being. Others and myself interpret it to mean Jesus is of the same essence as the Father and worthy of being called God. At this point I will stick to mine but I will not argue against yours. I am far from an expert on Greek grammar, and the experts themselves debate heavily on the topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

Have you done any (and I mean ANY) research at all on the language John uses?

I have posted on this point many times here is a link if you would care to read it.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p867695

There is a big debate over it among scholars. I take it you interpret it more to say that Jesus was a divine being. Others and myself interpret it to mean Jesus is of the same essence as the Father and worthy of being called God. At this point I will stick to mine but I will not argue against yours. I am far from an expert on Greek grammar, and the experts themselves debate heavily on the topic.

Thank you but I can't see the answer to my question, have you personally read or clicked on any links that examine the basic Greek in question? I was not asking about interpretation I was asking about the Greek grammar in question. I say basic because I am not and I take it you are not a Greek scholar but to hold a position on anything but emotion one has to be informed.

I have read enough to know that there is little doubt, the Greek favours the renditions in the link I presume you will never click on and the detailed fact based posts in this forum on the Greek (notably by a very well researched Tigger) that I am guessing you will never read.

Have an excellent discussion on John 1:1 nevertheless, I hope you find the views that are to your liking.

Good day to you,

JW

WORD STUDIES: The singular anarthrous (without the article) Greek nominative count noun (tigger)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p824338
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p821563
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p823568

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes I did click on your link. I looked on other sites as well as wiki's summary on the matter. It doesn't seem as one sided as you make it out to be that your interpretation of the proper Greek grammar is the correct one. I tried understanding it, but it just got really confusing for me. I stand by my position though that your entitled to your belief and I mine until there is some actual concensus on the matter, which I doubt there ever will be. Take care.

[Tcg]

The Word is Jesus, and it says Jesus was both with God and was God. My interpretation is that Jesus was with the Father (the Word was with God), and Jesus was God in status the same as the Father (the Word was God).

Have you done any (and I mean ANY) research at all on the language John uses?

I have posted on this point many times here is a link if you would care to read it.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#867695

There is a big debate over it among scholars. I take it you interpret it more to say that Jesus was a divine being. Others and myself interpret it to mean Jesus is of the same essence as the Father and worthy of being called God. At this point I will stick to mine but I will not argue against yours. I am far from an expert on Greek grammar, and the experts themselves debate heavily on the topic.

Thank you but I can't see the answer to my question, have you personally read or clicked on any links that examine the basic Greek in question? I was not asking about interpretation I was asking about the Greek grammar in question. I say basic because I am not and I take it you are not a Greek scholar but to hold a position on anything but emotion one has to be informed.

I have read enough to know that there is little doubt, the Greek favours the renditions...

So you admit your ignorance of Greek, but then claim to know something that would require an in depth knowledge of Greek.

This introduces the question of what you base your claim of knowledge on given that it isn't a knowledge of Greek.

The fact that your conclusion matches what your branch of Christianity has taught you to believe, it's certainly clearly a strong possibility that you simply went looking for evidence that matched what you concluded prior to your "examination" of the evidence.

If it is something other than that, you certainly haven't explained what that would be.