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!

[tigger2]

[Replying to tigger2]

How did you arrive at John 1:1 being mistranslated?

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 ... 1c-a.html

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Not sure I quite follow you here. Could you explain a bit more, please?

Scriptures which seem to identify Christ with God are usually explainable as mistranslations or misinterpretations.

Your example of John 1:1, when carefully analyzed, can be seen to be mistranslated as "and the Word was God." John 10:30 and :38 are usually translated correctly but are misinterpreted (Compare John 17:21, 22.)

What, then, have you concluded is the correct translation?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Not sure I quite follow you here. Could you explain a bit more, please?

Scriptures which seem to identify Christ with God are usually explainable as mistranslations or misinterpretations.

Your example of John 1:1, when carefully analyzed, can be seen to be mistranslated as "and the Word was God." John 10:30 and :38 are usually translated correctly but are misinterpreted (Compare John 17:21, 22.)

What, then, have you concluded is the correct translation?

I'd prefer for you to be the first person to click on the link, examine lesson 1 carefully, and ask me any questions you may have about lesson 1.

[onewithhim]

The Greek kurios replaces the Hebrew YHWH; while the Greek theos replace the Hebrew Elohim.

Paul is writing in Greek, and using the LXX. Jesus is given the title kurios (translating the Hebrew YHWH) while God the father is given the term theos (translating the Hebrew elohim).

hope that helps

So you're saying Paul is calling Jesus "YHVH"? I don't think so. In spite of Paul's extremely high Christology, he always saves the designation of God for the Father alone.

YHVH is the name of God, not the name of the Messiah.

I'm no expert on Hebrew or Greek, but it seems the way Paul uses "Lord" when referring to Jesus would correlate more to "Adonai", "my lord", as in "master" and not "YHVH, LORD" God.

YHVH is always a reference to God, the Father, not the Messiah, the Son.

You seem to be making a bold claim here, that Paul is calling Jesus the "Great I AM" (YHVH) the way that the Evangelist John seems to have done.

John never stated nor indicated in any way that Jesus is "the great I Am." The translation of John 8:58 is a MESS of a rendering, and it's pretty obvious, if a person stops to think about it.

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... m/#respond

http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012 ... d/#respond


Also see Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, pp. 103-112.

[tigger2]

Also see http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 45 by onewithhim]

As you may have noticed in a previous post of mine, the problem is that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. At best, we receive only conflicting snap shots which we have to struggle to put together. You have cited a prime example. In many passages, Christ is presented as subordinate to God, whereas in others Christ is identified with God (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30, 38).

(1) There is no conflict. Christ is never identified with God, if a person wants to research what the passages really mean & how they are written.

John 1:1 is the weak peg that so many people hang their hats on. It creates a whole new religion! "The Word was God." Wow! But people don't realize just how it was intended by John, and this can be ascertained by applying some simple rules of Greek grammar vs. rules for English grammar.

The third clause of John 1:1: theos en ho logos (word-for-word: "and god was the word"). Look closely....we are confronted with the problem of the missing article before theos ("god"). As one Bible scholar puts it:

"Greek has only a definite article, like our the; it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will be properly rendered in English with 'a' or 'an.' We are not 'adding a word' when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say 'Snoopy is dog,' but must say 'Snoopy is a dog.' [All translations accurately render the clause ho logos as 'the word. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as 'a word.']

"Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially translate as 'the god'; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an indefinite noun that would normally be translated as 'a god'....So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the 'the' from 'god' and say that the Word was 'with God' (literally 'with the god.' But what about the indefinite theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun 'God,' but to the indefinite noun 'a god.' In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.'" (Truth in Translation, Jason David BeDuhn, pp.114-115)

This rule of translation from the Greek is recognized by The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, 1891. John 1:1c is rendered as "a god."

Another interesting viewpoint is found at

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... s-ago.html



So what does "god" without the definite article mean? What did it mean to John's audience? Simply that Jesus Christ was an important, powerful person, but different from "the god."



(2) John 10:30 certainly does not indicate that Jesus is God. He was stating that he was in agreement with the Father, that they were unified in thought. His meaning was exactly the same as what he said at John 17:21-23 where he prayed for his disciples, "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us...I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

Are the disciples God because they would be "one" with Him and Jesus? If Jesus is God because he said he was "one" with the Father, then the disciples are also God.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 45 by onewithhim]

As you may have noticed in a previous post of mine, the problem is that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. At best, we receive only conflicting snap shots which we have to struggle to put together. You have cited a prime example. In many passages, Christ is presented as subordinate to God, whereas in others Christ is identified with God (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30, 38).

It is not a matter of "how God is built", or of whether Christ is "subordinate to God" or "identified with God" according to how we read this or that passage.

Rather, it is about who is and who is not God, the Deity.

On that Jesus was very clear and very specific, after his resurrection.

John 20:

16 Jesus said to her, Mary. She turned and said to him in Aramaic, Rabboni! (which means Teacher).
17 Jesus said to her, Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, I have seen the Lord"and that he had said these things to her.

This is a quite definitive statement that cannot be modified by anything else he or others said.

It tells us the Father is God, and that the Father is as much his God as He is our God.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 57 by Checkpoint]

Any comments on my posts #54 and #56? Thanks.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 57 by Checkpoint]

Onewithhim wrote:

Any comments on my posts #54 and #56? Thanks.

Not really.

I have not studied them in detail, but a general reading finds them informative and I am not about to challenge what you said.

My views on this whole issue have been confirmed, added to, and solidified, since becoming a regular on this site.

It is probably still a work in progress.

[marco]

I have proved to myself that the meaning intended by John is not "the Word was God." ]

You have certainly made a case for this view. Your suggestion that the indefinite article is implied, along with your contention that theos applies to those associated with God, is not recognised in the standard translation. Further, your belief that word order does not change the meaning is, I think, contentious. The meaning is found through case endings of course but if I take an example from Latin, with which I am more familiar,

reginam poeta laudat and poeta reginam laudat have the same meaning: The poet praises the queen. But by placing reginam first, we have the notion of: It's the QUEEN that the poet praises.

So the translation we would expect would be: " it is GOD that the word is." To consider the meaning "And the word is a god" may solve some subtleties of grammar. To me you are simply straining grammar to permit it to mean what you want the meaning to be. In this important text it seems reasonable to accept that John meant GOD when he used the word theos, and not an angel or messenger.

I can see how you have "proved to yourself" that "the word was God" is not a good translation; but treating theos as a noun like any other noun is downgrading the importance of the word . So discussions of the indefinite article, with this word, may not be appropriate.