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!

[PinSeeker]

My narrative doesn't come from the creed of some council but from the Bible where it says that Jesus is not equal to God. (Philippians 2:5-6)

Right, this is the Jehovah's Witness understanding of that passage, which is quite in error So, by extension, your are, too. But so be it. More on this below...

Therefore I view the Athanasian Creed as impossible to reconcile with the Bible and thus the doctrine is false.

I don't really care what the Athanasian Creed says, 2timothy316. Scripture presents the one God -- Jehovah -- as existing in three distinct Persons.

So we have one that is scriptural and one that is not. We have made our choices.

Well, we just differ on what we see as Scriptural.

It's interesting that I have met quite a few people that claimed they believed in the trinity. Then I read them the Athanasian Creed and they admitted that they had no idea that was what they were agreeing to and without even reading the Bible knew the doctrine was wrong. Then I read to them Philippians 2:5, 6 and they immediately discard the trinity doctrine.

Right, because, being the good Jehovah's Witness that you are, I'm sure you read from the New World Translation, which very poorly translates that passage, intentionally conveying something totally contrary to the original Greek. Thus, you presented it from a flawed perspective and misled those people you met.

Verse six reads, properly, "...though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped...", and very clearly conveys that Jesus is in the form (morphe', meaning the very essence/nature) of God, and thus was (and is) God. Reading on, we read that He emptied Himself... resolved not to use or exploit His status as God... by taking on -- notice that nothing there intimates that He was no longer the very essence/nature of Jehovah, but merely that he laid it totally aside for a time -- the form (again, the very essence/nature) of man. And Paul's whole point is that He did this for our sake.

Well, Jehovah's Witnesses (and you) vehemently disagree with that. So be it. Yeah, I mean, everybody buys what he/she wants to buy; everyone's prerogative is their own. I fully expect you to say the same thing of me (that my perspective is flawed) and I'm perfectly fine with that. So be it.

I'm also reminded of Jesus's proclamation that He is the good shepherd (John 10:11, 14), which is very much parallel to what we read in Psalm 23, that Jehovah is the shepherd, because of Whom we lack nothing. And then of course Jesus goes on -- just a few verses later -- to say, "I and the Father are one..." The Jews present knew exactly what He was saying and were ready to stone Him for blasphemy.

But, again, so be it. God's Word, as we read in Isaiah 55, never returns to Him empty, bur rather always accomplishes that which He purposes, and succeeds in the purpose for which He sends it.

Sometimes God's Word gets through to people, but sadly sometimes it doesn't.

I agree.

Grace and peace to you.

[2timothy316]

My narrative doesn't come from the creed of some council but from the Bible where it says that Jesus is not equal to God. (Philippians 2:5-6)

Right, this is the Jehovah's Witness understanding of that passage, which is quite in error So, by extension, your are, too. But so be it. More on this below...

Yet I understood the scripture the same before I was a Witness....so now what's your excuse? It's called reading comprehension and I learned in 2nd grade. If some says they are not equal it means that they are not equal. But I guess you missed that in school? The scripture is clear as a bell but something will not let you see that...

[2timothy316]

I don't really care what the Athanasian Creed says,

This is either a lie or you don't know the origin of your own dogma. Because it's the cornerstone of your dogma. And if you don't care about it then you're in big trouble, according to those that believe the trinity, the creed is authoritative.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Athanasian-Creed
"Athanasian Creed, also called Quicumque Vult (from the opening words in Latin), a Christian profession of faith in about 40 verses. It is regarded as authoritative in the Roman Catholic and some Protestant churches. It has two sections, one dealing with the Trinity and the other with the Incarnation; and it begins and ends with stern warnings that unswerving adherence to such truths is indispensable to salvation."

Did you know that rejecting the Athanasian Creed 'truths' makes you unacceptable for salvation? Do you even know what you believe in? I'm not asking to be mean, but seriously it seems you are not clear in your own doctrine in what you can accept and what you can reject. Rejecting the Athanasian Creed is a no no.

Should we start making a list of the things you don't care what it says?
1. The Bible
2. The Athanasian Creed
(3. Encyclopedia Britannica?)

[PinSeeker]

I don't really care what the Athanasian Creed says,

This is either a lie or you don't know the origin of your own dogma. Because it's the cornerstone of your dogma. And if you don't care about it then you're in big trouble, according to those that believe the trinity, the creed is authoritative.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Athanasian-Creed
"Athanasian Creed, also called Quicumque Vult (from the opening words in Latin), a Christian profession of faith in about 40 verses. It is regarded as authoritative in the Roman Catholic and some Protestant churches. It has two sections, one dealing with the Trinity and the other with the Incarnation; and it begins and ends with stern warnings that unswerving adherence to such truths is indispensable to salvation."

Did you know that rejecting the Athanasian Creed 'truths' makes you unacceptable for salvation? Do you even know what you believe in? I'm not asking to be mean, but seriously it seems you are not clear in your own doctrine in what you can accept and what you can reject. Rejecting the Athanasian Creed is a no no.

Should we start making a list of the things you don't care what it says?
1. The Bible
2. The Athanasian Creed
(3. Encyclopedia Britannica?)

Neither the Athanasian Creed nor the Encyclopedia Brittannica (?) are Scripture, 2timothy316. Not to say either one are "bad" or do not contain good things, but still, neither are Scripture. And in that sense, the Athanasian Creed, though it contain a lot of really good things, is not really authoritative at all. Believe what you want about me, my friend. Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

If some says they are not equal it means that they are not equal.

That's just it; it doesn't say that at all"

"...though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men..."

So, though He was equal, did not regard it as a thing to be exploited, but humbled Himself... for our sake. Nope. Nothing there about not being equal. Rather, the equality is quite explicit. That you see what you claim to see in that is... well, astonishing. But again, believe what you want. As I've said many times, my job is merely to proclaim.

The scripture is clear as a bell but something will not let you see that...

Right back atcha.

Grace and peace to you, 2timothy316.

[2timothy316]

I don't really care what the Athanasian Creed says,

This is either a lie or you don't know the origin of your own dogma. Because it's the cornerstone of your dogma. And if you don't care about it then you're in big trouble, according to those that believe the trinity, the creed is authoritative.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Athanasian-Creed
"Athanasian Creed, also called Quicumque Vult (from the opening words in Latin), a Christian profession of faith in about 40 verses. It is regarded as authoritative in the Roman Catholic and some Protestant churches. It has two sections, one dealing with the Trinity and the other with the Incarnation; and it begins and ends with stern warnings that unswerving adherence to such truths is indispensable to salvation."

Did you know that rejecting the Athanasian Creed 'truths' makes you unacceptable for salvation? Do you even know what you believe in? I'm not asking to be mean, but seriously it seems you are not clear in your own doctrine in what you can accept and what you can reject. Rejecting the Athanasian Creed is a no no.

Should we start making a list of the things you don't care what it says?
1. The Bible
2. The Athanasian Creed
(3. Encyclopedia Britannica?)

Neither the Athanasian Creed nor the Encyclopedia Brittannica (?) are Scripture, 2timothy316. Not to say either one are "bad" or do not contain good things, but still, neither are Scripture. And in that sense, the Athanasian Creed, though it contain a lot of really good things, is not really authoritative at all. Believe what you want about me, my friend. Grace and peace to you.

You still don't seem to understand about the origins of this flawed doctrine that you hold so dear...and clearly you're ok with things that have their basis in the non-scriptural. You know that the Athanasian Creed is not inspired by God yet it is where your doctrine comes from. I simply don't understand why people hold on so tight to doctrines that they KNOW are as you said, 'not scripture'. The Catholics, who made up the doctrine, know it is not scriptural and the protestants that adopted it as their doctrine know it's not scriptural but that doesn't matter to them either. I just don't get why follow something that is not scriptural.

[PinSeeker]

You still don't seem to understand about the origins of this flawed doctrine that you hold so dear...

I understand perfectly what you and other Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously think -- or disingenuously proclaim -- about the origins of it.

...and clearly you're ok with things that have their basis in the non-scriptural.

LOL! No, that's surely not the case. I am okay, though, with things that you and other Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously think have no basis in Scripture. Likewise, I am not okay with things that you and other Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously think do have basis in Scripture.

The Catholics, who made up the doctrine, know it is not scriptural and the protestants that adopted it as their doctrine know it's not scriptural but that doesn't matter to them either.

A. I'm with you that the Catholic church has quite a few theological issues, many passed down through the centuries and millennia and many more contemporary. Some of them, if not many, we would agree on, I'm sure, and others not so much. But their understanding of the triune nature of God is at least close to correct (although they elevate Mary virtually to a position of "co-Redeemer" with Christ, which is terribly incorrect).

B. So you think Catholics and protestants alike "don't really believe what they say they believe..." and that what God says about it (or what they think He says) doesn't matter to them... I really have no idea how anybody can possibly come to a conclusion like that -- other than in a disingenuous attempt to advance their own narrative -- so I'm just going to let that go.

I just don't get why follow something that is not scriptural.

Well, on a purely human, experiential level, me, either, but they do. On a theological level, though, actually, I do know why, because God the Father -- through various prophets and apostles -- and God the Son are very clear about it.

Grace and peace to you, 2timothy316.

[emilynghiem]

(1)

Trinitarian polytheism:

Father = God
Son = God
H.S. = God

Three Gods.

(3) No, this means more like:

GOD=
Father
Son
Holy Spirit

ONE GOD

NOTE: I would AGREE With you that the way you
spelled it out above as
(1)
"Father = God
Son = God
H.S. = God
Three Gods."
Is incorrect, confusing and makes no sense to people!
Of COURSE this is wrong.

I have had long and extended conversations with people about this, and any trinitarian will say that yes, Jesus is God. They also say that yes, the Father is God. And yes, the Holy Spirit is God. Count them. How many Gods are there according to them? You are right, it does not make sense. Jesus cannot BE God and also be God's Son. It's one or the other, and he himself said that it is ONLY the Father that is God. I will go along with Jesus on that.

.

Dear @onewithhim

We clearly agree that this cannot mean "three different Gods" and make any sense or truth out of that.

Where we disagree is when those who believe in God manifested as God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit
KEEP TELLING YOU: NO, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THREE GODS

But YOU who object to that KEEP INSISTING THAT THIS MEANS THREE GODS.

So we ALL AGREE that this does not mean "Three Gods"

The conflict is that YOU (and people like you)
keep setting up a STRAWMAN stating "this means Three Gods"
Then arguing that is false.

So instead of focusing where we AGREE ON GOD
You keep wanting to focus on something we all agree
DOES NOT MEAN THREE GODS
and making a conflict where there shouldn't be one.

So the issue isn't coming from all of us agreeing there is only one God.

The problem is coming from:

(a) the symbolism or language COMING ACROSS TO YOU
AS IF THIS IS SAYING THERE ARE THREE GODS
So you object to this
(even though I and others keep telling you
that's not what it means. But yes, if you keep
reframing it incorrectly "as meaning there are three Gods"
WE ALL AGREE THAT ISN'T RIGHT)

When I run into this problem with Jehovah's Witnesses,
I just go back and state the Bible verbatim as
"baptizing all nations in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit" so it is worded exactly,
and not to try to reframe it where it introduces conflict.

(b) the pattern of you WANTING to say others are wrong
by INSISTING on reframing God/Jesus/Holy Spirt
"to mean three Gods" when that isn't what people
mean or trying to say when citing the Father/Son/HolySpirit

Whatever conflicts is causing the "desire to make other people wrong"
that is distracting from focusing on where we agree on God's truth.

I suggest we focus on where we agree,
and avoid any confusion over things we AGREE ARE NOT TRUE
SUCH AS THE INTERPRETATION AS "THREE GODS" which isn't correct.

If we are going to cite the reference to the three,
again, I would recommend how the Bible words it verbatim
as baptizing all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

◄ Matthew 28:19 ►
Parallel Verses
King James Version
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

@onewithhim
Can we agree that in the passage above Matthew 28:19
There is no conflict, no framework that says anything like
claiming there are three Gods? If we can agree on this,
then let's just cite this passage that doesn't bring up
that conflict. And not reframe any verses in the Bible
WHERE IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE IS SAYING THERE ARE THREE GODS
Since this causes problems, conflicts and errors.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to emilynghiem in post #338]
I don't think I reframed any verses. I have been explaining what I have learned from many people who believe in the Trinity. If you ask them....(1) Is Jesus God? they say YES. (2) Is the Father God? YES. (3) The Holy Spirit? YES. How many Gods is that? I count three. Polytheism. I believe in ONE God, the Father, whom Jesus called "the only true God" (John 17:3). True monotheism.


.

[Wootah]

[Replying to emilynghiem in post #338]
I don't think I reframed any verses. I have been explaining what I have learned from many people who believe in the Trinity. If you ask them....(1) Is Jesus God? they say YES. (2) Is the Father God? YES. (3) The Holy Spirit? YES. How many Gods is that? I count three. Polytheism. I believe in ONE God, the Father, whom Jesus called "the only true God" (John 17:3). True monotheism.


.

So when asked about the local football team.

Is James on the team? YES
Is Peter on the team? YES
Is Carlo on the team? YES

So you conclude there are three teams. How are you being rational?

Do Christians say: Jesus is a God and the Father is a God and The Spirit is a God? No, and you know that.

Personally I think the above shows that you make your position more difficult by not conceding basic ground. If you are going to argue and get it wrong there, why we would we trust you have some validity elsewhere?