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!

[2timothy316]

Here is a person that knows the trinity is not Biblical but doesn't care. I don't agree with his reasoning on why he believes as he does but I have to give him kudos for owning up to it while others try to push it as Biblical fact.

http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/p ... =40&t=2729

[bjs]

……………………………….............

(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’):

I am unaware of any use of the term YHWH in the New Testament. As far as I know, the all the writers used the term theos, which is the Greek word for God, to refer to God the Father.

Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, “Who, being in very nature God…�

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

The N.T. was written by Jews or by Gentiles influenced by Jewish categories of thought.

The architects of the creeds were thoroughly Greek, and therefore used Greek categories of thought.

It is no wonder why we will not find language in the N.T. that is identical with that in the Greek creeds.

I admit that the divinity and hypostasis of the Spirit is much harder to defend exegetically than is the divinity of Jesus; once one has familiarized himself with Jewish categories of thought, examples of the latter are numerous: the Prologue to the Gospel of John, and Thomas' confession "My Lord and my God" when he faces the risen Jesus, are the most explicit examples and easiest to perceive by those who have not studied 1st c. Jewish theology and exegesis.

For that elusive third member, there are a few verses supporting his place within the trinity:

Acts 5: 3-4 refers to the H.S. as God.

The commission at the end of Matthew's gospel reads: "baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". It does not say "names of..." using the plural. This is what we call a triadic formula.

Here are some other triadic formulas to look up:

1 Cor. 12:4-6

2 Cor. 13.14

1 Peter 1.2


Hope that helps.

[tigger2]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Acts 5:3, 4

Acts 5:3, 4. Here we find a baptized Christian, one who has, therefore, received holy spirit, selling his property and giving some of the money from that sale to the Apostles. Now this man was under no obligation to sell his land or give any of that money to the Apostles. That he did so would have been a fine thing. But this man, Ananias, wanted honor more than he wanted to give charity. So he gave only part of the money from his property to the Apostles. This, too, would have been a fine thing. but he lied directly to the Apostles, because he wanted even more recognition, and told them he had given them all the money from the sale of his property!

So Peter said,
“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or ‘cheat’ - Mo (or ‘to deceive’ or ‘to play false’ - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong’s and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to [‘played false to’ (‘defrauded’ - Mo)] men but to God.� - RSV.

The “evidence� here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit “must� be God!

This type of reasoning is painfully poor at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of “reasoning� applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this “evidence� we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says “you have not lied to men but to God�!

We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.� - RSV.

So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must� be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!

I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence “reveals� another essential “mystery�: Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.

(The above is from my study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... art-4.html )

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 4 by liamconnor]

Matt. 28:19

Noted trinitarian scholar W.E. Vine tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name [singular] of...� indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority� or “power� was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, Vine. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.�

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name� (“authority,� “power�) he says that it is used
“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....�

A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:
“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.�

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance (Matt. 28:19) of the word “name� being used with “the holy spirit� where it is used in the phrase beginning with “in the name of...� which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of “authority,� “power,� etc.

What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (“name�) used for “Him� in its most-used sense of “personal name� (as do the Father and the Son—hundreds of times).

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian “evidence� for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian “proofs�! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

(Excerpts above are from my study on my blog: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-3.html )

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by tigger2]

(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.)

That was the part of the OP I was answering.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I took it NOT to be asking whether the N.T. used good logic in defending the triune nature of God; but whether BELIEF in the triune nature of God could be detected.

In the passages I gave, the BELIEF can be detected. Whether one thinks that belief is logical or not is a different question, and was not part of your OP.

So once more: In the Acts passage, Peter's words imply that lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.
"Why have you lied to the Holy Spirit....you have not lied to men (surely the apostles are men), but to God."

Three propositions:

1) They have lied to the Holy Spirit
2) they have not lied to men (i.e. the apostles and discpiles)
3) They have lied to God.

The fact that in the narrative they do actually lie to men (Peter and the others) is irrelevant to Peter's belief, evidenced in his response.

seems a fairly simple equation.

One can of course, if one really wants to, parse this out to mean that Peter believed the term Holy Spirit to be nominally identical with the term God (just as God and "the father" are two terms for the same thing). Or one can say that Peter believes in an intermediary entity, like the angels, neither God nor man, and that Ananias has lied to both.


As far as Greek philosophical language not appearing in the N.T., I have already noted why such an expectation is anachronistic.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 6 by tigger2]


I really have no idea what your point is.

You are asking whether the Bible indicates that the Holy Spirit is fully Divine and yet not a mere synonym of "the Father or "the Son." Right?

You pointed out that τὸ ὄνομα can mean "power, or authority" as well as "personal name, like Zacharias". In this case the Matthean formula would be "baptize in the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If this is not a Trinitarian formula, it must be rendered in one of at least these ways or some variant:

1) "...in the power/authority of God, God, and a synonym for God.

2) "....power/authority of God, someone that is not God, and in something that is not God".

Can you, using my terms, tell me how you understand the Matthean formula should be read?

Now, if your whole hangup is that later Trinitarian theology uses concepts like ousia and hypostasis, but that the Bible does not; well, I have already pointed out the anachronism there. Contributors to trinitarian theology had to take current Greek terms and invest them with new meanings in order to conceptualize what they believed the Scriptures taught. Terms like ousia and hypostasis are not going to occur in the N.T. as they do in early Trinitarian theology.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

In a general response to the OP, (not a detailed one)I will only say for now that I am unaware that Jesus taught anything but Jewish Shema Monotheism, not any "Trinity."

IF there is a hidden teaching from Jesus regarding any Trinity, it was implicit at best, never explicit.

Which begs the question why would such an important doctrine not be shouted from the rooftops, in all four Gospels? Were it true, that is, and had Jesus actually taught it.

[Pierac]

……………………………….............

(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’):

I am unaware of any use of the term YHWH in the New Testament. As far as I know, the all the writers used the term theos, which is the Greek word for God, to refer to God the Father.

Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus, “Who, being in very nature God…�

Are you saying you support the Kenotic Doctrine?


Paul