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.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

A case for a weak binitarianism can be made from NT christological claims, but no NT claims support the official dogma of Trinitarianism, the central pillar of which is "Jesus is God" claims.

In the NT, Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead, first by saying in John 17:3, "You [Father] are the only true God", and second by identifying himself with the Son of Man in repeated passages, in which he conducts the judgment of God, and "has the power on earth to forgive sins".

Binitarianism of a sort involves itself in this Son of Man of Jesus - inspired originally from the book of Daniel, as an exalted being conceived as an archangelic, pre-existent, heavenly figure who lives in the clouds and is gloriously, ceremoniously presented before God, whom Daniel calls "the Ancient of Days". Thus we have a "Second Power in heaven", who, however, is not ontologically God, but rather God's primordial representative and agent. So: the initial, monotheistic structure was that of one God, one "Person" who is God; plus another heavenly figure - "divine" but not ontologically God - primordial and pre-existent.

In the Synoptics Jesus identifies himself with the Son of Man at his Sanhedrin trial, telling high priest Caiaphas that they will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds in great glory, accompanied with "Power" (the living Presence of God). By claiming to be the heaven-dwelling primal, angelic Son of Man, Jesus was seen to be guilty of blasphemy - not because he claimed to be God, but because he was claiming "the next thing to being God" - to be a unique, heavenly "Son" whom God charged with execution of divine judgment. Of course, this was what prompted Caiaphas cry "Blasphemy!" and to tear his robe in righteous indignation.

This early monotheistic binitarianism was the earliest Jewish christology about Jesus. The Trinity dogma only came after the Gentile church misunderstood the Son of Man's relation to God, raised the Son of Man to the status of ontological God, and did the same with the Holy Spirit - thus newly and weirdly creating a new form of the Godhead. A new form that fractured God's unity and elevated a primordial Son of God to the status of "God the Son".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

A case for a weak binitarianism can be made from NT christological claims, but no NT claims support the official dogma of Trinitarianism, the central pillar of which is "Jesus is God" claims.

In the NT, Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead, first by saying in John 17:3, "You [Father] are the only true God", and second by identifying himself with the Son of Man in repeated passages, in which he conducts the judgment of God, and "has the power on earth to forgive sins".

Binitarianism of a sort involves itself in this Son of Man of Jesus - inspired originally from the book of Daniel, as an exalted being conceived as an archangelic, pre-existent, heavenly figure who lives in the clouds and is gloriously, ceremoniously presented before God, whom Daniel calls "the Ancient of Days". Thus we have a "Second Power in heaven", who, however, is not ontologically God, but rather God's primordial representative and agent. So: the initial, monotheistic structure was that of one God, one "Person" who is God; plus another heavenly figure - "divine" but not ontologically God - primordial and pre-existent.

In the Synoptics Jesus identifies himself with the Son of Man at his Sanhedrin trial, telling high priest Caiaphas that they will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds in great glory, accompanied with "Power" (the living Presence of God). By claiming to be the heaven-dwelling primal, angelic Son of Man, Jesus was seen to be guilty of blasphemy - not because he claimed to be God, but because he was claiming "the next thing to being God" - to be a unique, heavenly "Son" whom God charged with execution of divine judgment. Of course, this was what prompted Caiaphas cry "Blasphemy!" and to tear his robe in righteous indignation.

This early monotheistic binitarianism was the earliest Jewish christology about Jesus. The Trinity dogma only came after the Gentile church misunderstood the Son of Man's relation to God, raised the Son of Man to the status of ontological God, and did the same with the Holy Spirit - thus newly and weirdly creating a new form of the Godhead. A new form that fractured God's unity and elevated a primordial Son of God to the status of "God the Son".

If the Son of Man was supposed to have been pre-existent and angelic, the term "Ancient of Days" seems to convey the status as "first born (created) of all Creation". But Created he was. And a created being, no matter how "ancient" or even being the first, can never be "God".

There was a Binatarianism however, if one wants to consider the Transcendent God and the Immanent God as two distinct "gods" or persons in the Godhead. In this case, the Father, YHVH, and the Shekinah (if I understand this correctly) Presence of God on Earth otherwise known as the Holy Spirit of God.

But to divide the Transcendent and the Immanent in any way is to acede to the notion that One God cannot be in two places (Heaven and Earth) at one time.

That seems to be at variance of the notion that God is able to go where, or be where He wants simultaneously. Omniprescence.

To divide the Transcendent from the Immanent seems a human distinction, not a Divine one. Theological speculation as opposed to the Divine revelation of the undivided Oneness of God.

No need to formulate the Father or the Holy Spirit as separate Persons. (Even less of a need to throw the Shema-observant Jesus into the mix for a "Trinity" of Persons.) To do so is to bow to a human theological construct, or a "doctrine of men".

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Well stated, and amen to that. Trinitarianism simply, and worse, arbitrarily, wrecked Christianity's original monotheism and Son of Man christology. And the worship of Jesus as God made Trinitarian Christianity guilty of blasphemy (claiming that God exists in three persons) and idolatry (worship of a man). Of all Christianity's doctrines, the Trinitarian schema did the most damage to the Church's relationship with Jews and Judaism. First, the Church declared that Jesus is God, and then charged "the Jews" with the unearned crime of deicide. If only the Church had learned from its Jewish forebears like the Ebionites and Nazareans that Jesus could be seen as an incarnation not of God but of the Son of Man, the Trinitarian gaffe might have been avoided and Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism kept in check.

[jgh7]

What do you make of Philippians 2:6?

Phil 2:5-7
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

[JehovahsWitness]

What do you make of Philippians 2:6?

Phil 2:5-7
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

If I may I will link to my post on this scripture.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 798#872798

I know Tigger has some pretty good post on this as well.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, I have more on Phil. 2:3-7. It includes the attitude of v. 3 as applied to Christ in 5, 6; more on harpagmos; meanings for huparchon; meaning of isos (equal); morphe (external appearance); and more.

But this discussion is about the challenges found in the OP. Does your ignoring them mean that you agree that none of them cannot be answered to support the trinity? Have you actually searched all the visions of God, for example, and found they always portray a single person?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 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.)

Great topic. I've never been able to wrap my head around the idea of God being three persons, but there is a part of the creed which states: "one in being with the father". This is something that I can see them saying after reading some of the texts. Here's an example:

But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.�e
10He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, YOU laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.�f
13To which of the angels did God ever say,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet�g ? Hebrews 1:8-13

So this looks like an example of a" description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown" as the SON.

This passage is a quotation from Psalm 102 which is as follows:

So I said:
“Do not take me away, my God, in the midst of my days;
your years go on through all generations.
25In the beginning YOU laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.
27But you remain the same,
and your years will never end. Psalm 102:24-27

A careful examination of the chapter indicates that the psalmist is referring to YHWH.

Therefore we have an example of a "clear description in scripture wherein God is visibly shown as more than one person." In Hebrews he's shows to be the Son while the same exact passage in Psalms is referring to YHWH.

For those who claim that the son was an angel:

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father�a ?

The answer is "none". While all the angelic host of heaven are referred to as "sons of God", so too are the new creature in Christ, and Adam. He never said that to any of them. He said it only to his "only begotten son".

[brianbbs67]

The only example of God as 3 I can find is, when Abraham encounters Him.

Tanakh Gen 18:1-6ish

The Lord appeared to him be the terebinths of Mamre; he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot. Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them and bowing low to the ground, he said, "My lords, if it please you, do not go on past your servant. Let a little water be brought; bathe your feet and recline under the tree. And let me fetcha morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves; then go on--seeing that you have come your servant's way." They replied, "Do as you have said."

But that is a stretch too, as the other 2 appear to be the angels that save Lot.

[tigger2]

[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.