The Trinity.

[Elijah John]

Is the dogma of the Trinity

a) Revealed Truth?
b) Is it Biblical? Or
c) Is the doctrine of the Trinity a theological solution to the problem of maintaining monotheism in light of early Christian desire to worship Jesus?

As always, please support your answer.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

JehovahWitness,

Why should we accept your take on the meaning of Scripture?

How can one confidently think he is getting truth from a group that sprung up in the 19th century, who admittedly got stuff wrong and continually changes her teachings?

Can anyone just pick up the Bible and authoritatively declare what it means?

By the same token, how can we trust a Church which condemned Gallileo for teaching scientific truth, and pressured him to recant?

[dio9]

Are not all Men potentially Sons of God? Through Christ and God's grace. Every true Christian should consider themselves Sons of god. To a greater of lesser extent. Is not God in Christ in every believer? Our transcend God is best described as parents and savior. For what parent is not also the savior of their child? Father and holy spirit are like father and mother of Jesus. According to scripture father is in heaven and mother is of the earth together they give us Christ. The trinity is actually the Tao with a savior.

[JehovahsWitness]

PHILIPIANS 2:6a

Paul refers to Jesus when he was "in the form (Gk. morphe; in Greek usage this word means the set of characteristics that makes a thing what it is) of God

Code: Select all

JERUSALEM BIBLE 


Who, being in the form of God [...]   emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming as human beings are

QUESTION Does Philipians 2:6a which says that Jesus was "in the form of God" mean Jesus was Almighty God?

• No, it means Jesus (The Word) looked like or resembled God in outward appearance. This would be because both YHWH and Jesus were spirits in heaven (as are all the angels). Angels are also in God's form because they too are spirits.

ACADEMIC CONCLUSIONS

• The Greek word translated into The English word "form", MORPHE and is found only two in places in Christian Greek Scriptures (The "New Tastament"), once in the questionable ending of Mark and in this passage in Philipians where Jesus is said first to have existed God's form and later he in a slaves form becoming a human being (verse 7). Although some have argued that "morphe" can be understood to mean "nature" of being and acting as something, Robert B. Strimple writing in the Westminster Theological Journal, 260[/u] writes: "in each instance [where MORFH occurs in the LXX] . . . [it] refers to the visible form or appearance" -
  
  • Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature(BDAG) states it refers to “form, outward appearance, shapeâ€�
    
    J. Behm, TDNT 4:745-46 says it is “[that] which may be perceived by the senses� -

How did Jesus take on "the form of a slave becoming as human being"?

• In the bible, angels (who would normally be invisible to humans) have been reported as 'taking on human form' by being given visible bodies in order to interact with faithful men and women of the past. Indeed sometimes people didn'teven know they were speaking with spirits /Angels until there was some supernatural manifestation. Jesus didn't just taken on human form by "materializing" so he could be seen, he took on human form when his life was tranformed into the womb of a virgin girl to subsequently being born as a human.

RELATED POSTS

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 "he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 798#872798


FURTHER READING

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... morfh.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... ns-26.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... ry-on.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... obert.html

[JehovahsWitness]

ACTS 2:36

Jesus calls himself "the Lord of the Sabbath" in Mark 2:28. The Sabbath is referred to as the "Sabbath of Yahweh" in the Old Testament

QUESTION Does the fact that the Sabbath belongs to YAHWEH and Jesus is called "Lord of the Sabbath" mean Jesus must *be* Almighty God?

• The word LORD means "owner" or "master". The word is applied, in the bible to anyone or anything deemed as having a measure of power or dominance. An omnipotent God , by way of being the Creator and supreme ruler of the universe is "Lord" or Master over all he choses but this does not mean he cannot delegate or appoint others to powerful positions. Note what the CATHOLIC New American Bible says ...

Code: Select all

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE 


Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has MADE HIM  both LORD and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified. - Acts 2:36

CAPs Mine

Here the bible explains that Jesus was "MADE " or appointed as Lord. Naturally this could only be done by someone of a higher position. Thus when Jesus proclaimed himself "Lord of the Sabbath" it is reasonable to conclude that he enjoyed this position, not because he is Almighty God JEHOVAH (YAHWEH) but because he was made or appointed as such by his Father.


JW





RELATED POSTS


So called trinity "proof" texts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 772#935772

Scriptural reasons to conclude Jesus is not Almighty God
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 572#751572


FURTHER READING

Full scripture index
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... index.html

Trinity "proof" texts debunked
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/trinity_prooftexts.htm

[JehovahsWitness]

WHOSE WORDS DID JESUS SPEAK?

Jesus places his word on the same level as the word of God—

Jesus was a messenger and only said what he was sent to say, he publically went on record affirming that what he said was not of his own originality.

Code: Select all

JERUSALEM BIBLE


For I have not spoken of my own accord; but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and what to speak - John 12:49

. [ Jesus's teaching] is in sharp contrast to the prophets of old who always made clear the word they were speaking was not their own: "The word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . . " (cf. Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3, etc.).

Jesus teachings never contradicted any revelation made through the Prophets of the past ; like them, Jesus said the words he was speaking were not his own:

Code: Select all

DOUAY-RHEIMS 

Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me - John 7:16

AUTHORATIVE BUT NOT ABSOLUTE

That said, there is no doubt, Jesus did speak with an authority that the Prophets of old did not have. The question is, was this because Jesus was Almighty God himself or because He was God's best student? Note what the following Catholic Bibles have to say:

Code: Select all

JERUSALEM BIBLE

 Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, by himself the Son can do nothing; he can do only what he sees the Father doing: and whatever the Father does the Son does too. -- John 5:19

Only God possesses this kind of authority.

Only God can speak with absolute authority; all other authority is relative. The " kind of authority" Jesus has is the authority of God's only begotten son. The son never claimed authority equal to the Father and any suggestion that he did has no basis in scripture.




JW



RELATED POSTS

How can Jesus be "Lord of the Sabbath" if he is not Almighty God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 987#935987

Was Jesus declaring himself to be YAWEH at John 8:58?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 842#935842

FURTHER READING

Full scripture index
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... index.html

Trinity "proof" texts debunked
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/trinity_prooftexts.htm

[JehovahsWitness]

2 Cor. 13:14

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is... in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14 ...)

Code: Select all

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE 


The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of you - 2 Corinthians 13:13 [14]  

Certain trinitarians claim that the mere mention of Christ, God and the holy spirit in the same sentence is enough to support the teaching of the trinity. For example, 2 Corinthians 13:14 has been declared by the United Staes Conference of Bishops, who authorized the NABRE translation to be {quote} "one of the clearest trinitarian passages in the New Testament". However the passage in question makes absolutely no mention of Jesus, God or the holy spirit all being Almighty, nor in fact is there ANY explicit or implicit notion of equality or coexistence. In fact all the verse does is mention three individual facts in the same sentence.

This is as faulty reasoning to conclude that the mere mention of individuals is enough to claim equality; afterall, if one were to read of " Bill and Hilary Clinton" in the same sentence, is that enough to claim they were both the President of the United states. If not, why should the mention that Jesus is gracious and God is love in the same sentence be taken as affirmation that they are both Almighty God?

Furthrr, the bible often mentions three different person in the same sentence, for example notice the Cathlic bible

DOUAY-RHEIMS BIBLE


Philip cometh, and telleth Andrew. Again Andrew and Philip told Jesus. - John 12:22

Are we to assume Andrew, Philipmand Jesus were all part of a "truine god" because they are here mentioned together? Any assumption of "parallelism" in the absence of any statement or indication that the three persons or elements are equal to Almighty God in some way is unreasonabe and can be dismissed, whether that be in John 12 :22 or 2 Corinthians 13:13 [14]!



JW


Further Reading
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 2-cor.html

[JehovahsWitness]

Hebrews 9:14

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is... in the New Testament (e.g.. ... Heb. 9:14)

Code: Select all

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE 


" ... how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God" - Hebrews 9:14  

Certain trinitarians claim that the mere mention of Christ, God and the holy spirit in the same sentence is enough to support the teaching of the trinity even if the passage in question explicitly states another purpose. For example, Hebrews 9 verse 14 has been refered to in arguments to support the trinity, however the passage itself speaks of Christ offering his blood to God, clearly depicting God as being a separate person to Christ. How can this passage possibly be used to support the idea that Christ *is* Almighty God?

The United Staes Conference of Bishops, (who authorized the CATHOLIC NABRE translation), stated in the footnote to Hebrews 9:14 that {quote} "this expression does not refer either to the holy Spirit or to the divine nature of Jesus but to the life of the risen Christ ....". { end quote} .

So one might reasonably ask...

If Hebrews 9:14 "...does not refer either to the holy Spirit or to the divine nature of Jesus" how can it be used to support the trinity? Is this not like presenting a receipt for a pair of shoes to prove you bought a car?

Further, if "the risen Christ" is not presented as being the same as Almighty God, why should we believe this scripture supports a trinity teaching that claims that Christ, risen to spirit life and returned to heaven, is himself Almighty GOD?




JW

RELATED POSTS

So called trinity "proof" texts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 772#935772

Scriptural reasons to conclude Jesus is not Almighty God
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 572#751572

[JehovahsWitness]

MATTHEW 28:19





DOES MATTHEW 28:19 REPRESENT A "TRINITY FORMULA"?

Trinitarians will often claim that Matthew 28:19 is some kind of " Trinity Formula" because it mentions being baptised in "the the name of" Father, Son and the holy spirit. They claim because the word "name" in Greek is in singular, then all three must have the same name and thus we must conclude all three are actually Almighty God.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit - Matthew 28:19

They fail to recognize however that to do something "in the name of" can refer to "authority of". For example in English, a Policeman may demand a houshlder open his door "in the name of the law". This doesn't mean the law is an actual person or that the law has a personal name; rather the Policman is claiming to be acting with the authority of the law (that is, he is acting in accord with the set of rules and regulations that govern the land).

CONCLUSION An unbias assessment of the scriptures above must lead readers to conclude that Matthew 28:19 does not supprt the idea that Jesus is himself Almighty God equal to his Father YAHWEH.

FURTHER READING

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... f-son.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -2819.html



RELATED POSTS

How could Jesus be given "all authority" at his resurrection if he didnt become king until 1914?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 355#829355

Once returned to heaven and no longer in his fleshly body, is Jesus EQUAL to Almighty God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 253#864253

[Hawkins]

Is the dogma of the Trinity

a) Revealed Truth?
b) Is it Biblical? Or
c) Is the doctrine of the Trinity a theological solution to the problem of maintaining monotheism in light of early Christian desire to worship Jesus?

As always, please support your answer.

People don't seem to understand the process of human witnessing.

We know for a fact that black holes exist not because we are presented with the evidence or proof, it is because our scientists are credible and we have faith that they (eyewitnesses) have the evidence. Humans rely on credible eyewitnesses to approach a truth. In this process, the eyewitnesses have a better understanding of the truth (i.e., black holes to scientists) itself and for the rest of human kind to believe with faith.

Matthew 13:11-13 (NIV2011) 
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Jesus' disciples have a better understanding of the knowledge of heavenly things, including who Jesus is. This kind of knowledge may not be available to the rest of human kind other than the chosen eyewitnesses (i.e., the disciples of Jesus).

In a nutshell, you won't know better!

John 20:28 (NIV2011) 
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!�

The denial of His Trinity is equivalent to say that you have a better understanding of black holes than the scientists even before they present their evidence and knowledge to you!

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

JehovahWitness,

Why should we accept your take on the meaning of Scripture?

How can one confidently think he is getting truth from a group that sprung up in the 19th century, who admittedly got stuff wrong and continually changes her teachings?

Can anyone just pick up the Bible and authoritatively declare what it means?


By the same token, how can we trust a Church which condemned Gallileo for teaching scientific truth, and pressured him to recant?

LOL! I’m impressed you waited until this long to play the “Galileo� card! Which incidentally is always played as a distraction and last ditch effort when one has run out of anything of substance to add.

Galileo was not condemned for teaching science. Galileo was rebuked for attempting to make theological claims. Something he had no right to do. This actually brings us back to my above post where your response was to bring up Galileo. Contrary to perhaps your beliefs, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry can simply authoritatively state their own theological views regarding Christ and His Church. Please learn your history. At the time, the Pope was actually a friend of Galileo and was always supportive of Galileo’s research – that is until Galileo took it upon himself to start speaking for the Church. Now the Church admits she made mistakes with how Galileo was treated, but she does not apologize for her duty to protect and safeguard Christ’s teachings. The Galileo affair is probably one of the most misunderstood in history. I suggest you learn the facts before you speak.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/GALILEO.HTM