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!

[MarysSon]

[Replying to post 229 by tigger2]

This is a repeat of my blank posts to MarysSon (but not blank this time I hope).

In answer MarysSon post #212:

MarysSon clearly disregards all the evidence which neutralizes trinitarian subjective reasonings.

"As for John 1:1 - it's only a "disaster" for those who are ignorant in Scriptural language."

This is a totally untrue statement.

How many times have the manufactured trinity 'proofs' been neutralized by the sunshine of actual careful scholarship (sometimes by trinitarian scholars themselves)?

John 1:1c is probably one of the worst examples of wishful interpretation by most trinitarian Bible translations and comments.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html

"Now – as for John 1:1, according to the Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana& Mantey, p. 147, this is a textbook example case of the Granville sharp’s Rule."

Wrong again. John 1:1 is not an example of the disputed "Sharp's Rule." There are a few examples from Paul's writings which some trinitarian translators choose one of two honest translations (and ignore the other) to get their 'proof' from Sharp's Rule.' There are other examples of this 'Rule' which even trinitarian translators have to translate in a non-trinitarian way.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_29.html

As for the "I AM" so-called proof, even many trinitarian-translated Bibles show their denial of this by not even capitalizing the so-called name. Among others these include the KJV; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; etc.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... art-1.html

My advice would be to ignore this person until he can respond reasonably to the non-trinitarian answers to his disputed "proofs" from so many ignorant sources and then actually give rational responses to the OP CHALLENGES .

If ANYONE truly wishes to respond to the CHALLENGES in the OP, please do so. Please stop with off-subject posts.

If you feel that I have "ignored" your posts - maybe it's because YOU ignored MINE.

Way back in post #210, I challenged you to provide evidence before I aswered your "8 points" in the OP.
You completely ignored this challenge so I haven't taken your posts seriously.

When you are read to address this challenge - let me know . . .

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 271 by MarysSon]

Challenges are in the OP - this, alone, is the topic of discussion here.

Forum Rules:

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

I commented on part A of my Challenges in post 16 above. B is in post 17; C in 18; D in 19; E in 20; F in 27; and G in 193 (p. 20); and H in post#194. Please review these posts if you wish to comment on the Challenges of the OP.

[MarysSon]

[Replying to post 271 by MarysSon]

Challenges are in the OP - this, alone, is the topic of discussion here.

Forum Rules:

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

I commented on part A of my Challenges in post 16 above. B is in post 17; C in 18; D in 19; E in 20; F in 27; and G in 193 (p. 20); and H in post#194. Please review these posts if you wish to comment on the Challenges of the OP.

I have answers for ALL of your original challenges in the OP.
However - YOU never addressed the following which leads me to believe that you can't.

From my earlier challenge to your OP:

I will answer ALL of your 8 points - which are NOT difficult to answer from Scripture.

FIRST, I need YOU to give me Biblical proof that everything must be explicitly mentioned in Scripture.
This is a standard that even Sola Scripturists do not dare hold to.

The teachings of Scripture come to us in TWO ways:
- Explicit teaching
- Implicit teaching

So, you cannot hold everybody to a standard that is NOT recognized by Scripture itself. You either need to prove your position - or concede that some of these 8 points can be proven by the IMPLICIT teachings of Scripture.

When you have addressed this challenge - I will be MORE than happy to answer all of your 8 points.
Remember - for YOUR demands to be addressed - YOU have to provide proof for your impossible standard that would include the use of the term "Bible" - which is NOT in the Bible.

You will ALSO have to show - from Scripture - why the New Testament has 27 Books . . .

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 272 by tigger2]

You have shown so clearly that Jesus could not be God, that a person looking humbly for the truth cannot possibly ignore it. I believe that Jesus' heart is crushed by all the people on Earth that choose to ignore his own words and make him God. He tried to valiantly to honor his Father's name and purpose on Earth, and fulfilled his Father's assignment for him, despite agonizing distress and pain. To call him "God" totally takes away from everything he was trying to do for mankind. For example, God cannot die. Yet Christ stayed faithful to a heinously orchestrated death. If he did not really die, then his sacrifice is meaningless. Also, he could have failed by chickening out or deliberately turning against his Father, as Satan would have liked him to do. But Jesus did not fail, and he courageously went to his death. Because of this God gave him a high position in the hierarchy of heaven, even more than he previously had (Phil.2:9,11b). To say that he didn't have a choice and that he was God Himself totally undermines what he actually accomplished by remaining faithful to the end.


.

[onewithhim]

Jesus deserves our admiration and love for what he did, because he didn't have to do it. I believe that he chose to come here and go through hell, because of his love for us and for his Father. His Father gave him a position even higher than what he had before, because he, Jesus, obeyed to the end of his human life on Earth.

"For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name." (Phil.2:9)


If Jesus was God, he wouldn't have been able to achieve any higher position, but the Father did give him a higher position in heaven. He was exalted by God, and if he was God he wouldn't need to be exalted any more than he already was. God cannot be placed any higher than he already is. Jesus is obviously subordinate to the Father. He is God's SON and not God.


.

[Checkpoint]

Jesus deserves our admiration and love for what he did, because he didn't have to do it. I believe that he chose to come here and go through hell, because of his love for us and for his Father. His Father gave him a position even higher than what he had before, because he, Jesus, obeyed to the end of his human life on Earth.

"For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name." (Phil.2:9)


If Jesus was God, he wouldn't have been able to achieve any higher position, but the Father did give him a higher position in heaven. He was exalted by God, and if he was God he wouldn't need to be exalted any more than he already was. God cannot be placed any higher than he already is. Jesus is obviously subordinate to the Father. He is God's SON and not God.

This subordination is clearly spelled out by Paul here:

1 Corinthians 15:

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.�

Now when it says that “everything� has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

[onewithhim]

Very nice discussion! Would anyone comment on Checkpoint's last post? Thank you!


.

[polonius]

[quote]Now when it says that “everything� has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.[quote]

QUESTION: If Jesus is "subject" to God he cannot be a "coequal" with God.

Thus Jesus would not be both coequal and divine within the definition of the Trinity.

[onewithhim]

Now when it says that “everything� has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

QUESTION: If Jesus is "subject" to God he cannot be a "coequal" with God.

Thus Jesus would not be both coequal and divine within the definition of the Trinity.

You have used quite well your power of reason. It is very clear from that Scripture that Jesus is subordinate to God and could not be God.


.

[Checkpoint]

Now when it says that “everything� has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

QUESTION: If Jesus is "subject" to God he cannot be a "coequal" with God.

Thus Jesus would not be both coequal and divine within the definition of the Trinity.

Thanks for that.

It is so good we can at least - at last - agree on something!