CLEAR, BASIC CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

[tigger2]

CLEAR, BASIC 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.

Notice the use of the word 'three' in every declaration/description of the trinity. And, of course the word 'trinity' itself includes the understanding of three.

………………………………....

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?
………………………………...................

(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…� - 20:31.

……………………………….................

(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! If they had heard this, there would have been no need for false witnesses to have Jesus immediately stoned to death.
………………………………...............

I believe any objective observer would admit that the answers to these simple scriptural challenges 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 long after the death of the last Apostle and the completion of Scripture) and convince yourself that they are "proofs" is 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 in the OT as well as the NT.

To believe that God withheld this information from his people (or made it something to be interpreted from unclear, incomplete references) from the beginning (and throughout all Scriptures) is a tragic error.

[marco]

Nah. I mean, just saying something is really beyond our grasp is not to say it's not worth trying to understand.

That is good advice if what is beyond our grasp is some complex theorem, some knot in nature or a complicated foreign sentence that resists translation. If it's something put forward by superstitious people to explain their puzzlement, we need not stay long. The Trinity is a plasticine model of God. Some might say it has the wonders of modern art.

[PinSeeker]

The Trinity is a plasticine model of God. Some might say it has the wonders of modern art.

No, the Trinity just the name we give to the triune nature of God. He is the Potter, and we are the clay.

[marco]

The Trinity is a plasticine model of God. Some might say it has the wonders of modern art.

No, the Trinity just the name we give to the triune nature of God. He is the Potter, and we are the clay.

One can understand the cheery tale of the nice potter making clay models. It's a pleasant metaphor as long as we don't have a potter who smashes his models. But the potter doesn't need three heads, like Cerberus. This is the stuff of myths and though Yahweh doesn't need any help in appearing silly, attaching a Holy Ghost to his upper lip and a son to his knee is just nonsense. Imaginative nonsense, granted.

[tigger2]

CLEAR, BASIC CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

Your challenges make perfect sense in a monotheistic setting. Effectively they are saying there is ONE God, not three. The Trinity, however, is not about three competing deities, and once we accept miracles, we can accept that our finite understanding fails before such a strange concept.

The Trinity may not have been expounded in the clear terms you demand simply because it is beyond expression. Were I a Trinitarian, which I am not, I would find happy solace in saying that the concept is a mystery beyond reason, so seeking to find it through reason is unreasonble.

If we are not discussing in a 'monotheistic setting,' what are we discussing in? The trinity is, of course, not about 'three competing deities,' but it is about three persons in unity.

If the trinity was unable to be 'expounded in clear terms' for thousands of years in Scripture, how is it that in the 4th century it was suddenly able to be expounded in the clear terms found in the OP? Notice the frequent use of 'three' there, for example. The inspired writers of scripture couldn't count to three? I seem to see the term fairly often in Scripture - - just never used for God!

And the challenges which should be found in scripture for Jesus being God (such as visions of God, John's summary of what his Gospel is about, etc.), these have nothing to do with explaining a mystery. Just straight-forward facts that should be found (if the trinity were true).

If there were actual clear, undisputed proof of a trinity (or just that Jesus is the true God) found repeatedly in scripture (as there should be if it were true), I would be forced to accept the 'mystery beyond reason' concept for the incomprehensible.

As there isn't, I don't.

Instead, there is clear, repeated, undisputed scriptural proof that the Father, YHWH, is God alone.

[tigger2]

CHALLENGE H

(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.

Clearly the priests and the High Priest were unaware of any hint that Jesus or his followers believed Jesus was equally God! They were totally concerned that he and his followers claimed that he was the CHRIST!#

These events were somewhat paralleled by the treatment of Paul by the Jewish leaders (Acts 23-26 -- note esp. 24:14). And yet he was never accused of believing or teaching that Jesus was equally God!
............................

# Luke 19:47,48; 20:20; and 22:1,2 also show that the Jewish leaders wished to have Jesus killed but still could not find a reasonable excuse!

And even after his death, the Jewish leaders still had no concept whatever of him claiming to be God. Notice how they called him an impostor - Matt. 27:63, RSV, NRSV, ESV, JB, NJB, NAB (‘70 and ‘91); NEB, REB, and MLB - and this is explained by trinitarian commentators commenting on the following verse (27:64) as meaning he had pretended to be the Messiah!

For example: NIVSB - “27:64 This last deception will be worse than the first. The first would be that Jesus was the Messiah, the second that he had risen as the Son of God.� - footnote.

And so, we find the following trinitarian commentaries agreeing with the NIVSB quote above:

Robertson’s Word Pictures. “The first fraud was belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, the second belief in his resurrection.�


“so the last error shall be worse than the first--the imposture of His pretended resurrection worse than that of His pretended Messiahship.� - Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary.

“The last error shall be worse than the first - That is, the last “deception,� or the taking him from the tomb, pretending that he rose, will have a wider influence among the people than the first, or his pretending to be the Messiah.� - Barnes’ Notes.

“What they now wanted was a way of safeguarding the tomb, in order that the body might not be stolen by fanatical disciples and His resurrection then proclaimed. In that event, they believe that the last delusion, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, would be worse than the first one was, the belief in His Messiahship.� - The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann

“The last error, namely, the false impression that he has risen from the dead, will be worse than the first error - the impression made by his impostures that he was the Messiah.� - Vincent's Word Studies.

Clearly, the Jewish leaders themselves never believed that Jesus or his followers ever claimed any equality to God!
...............................

I have yet to see any convincing answer to any of the Challenges.

[PinSeeker]

One can understand the cheery tale of the nice potter making clay models. It's a pleasant metaphor as long as we don't have a potter who smashes his models.

An artist as the right to do whatever he wants with what he creates.

But the potter doesn't need three heads, like Cerberus.

Doesn't have "three heads"; He's three distinct persons.

Imaginative nonsense, granted.

That's all your own. You say it's mine, I say it's yours. Where does that leave us? Right back at the beginning of the debate, right?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 39 by marco]

Do you think then, that pure Monotheism is more or less reasonable than Trinitarianism?

Or are they both equally absurd to the Marcovian mind?

[onewithhim]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I John 5:7)

Surely you know by now that this is a spurious verse ADDED to the canon much later in the history of putting together the Scriptures. It does not appear in earliest manuscripts, so you can eliminate that from your flimsy list of trinity proof texts.

[onewithhim]

No man hath seen God at any time, . . .

Exactly. But many men have seen Jesus.

[onewithhim]

I am, is actually, ehyeh asher ehyeh. Not Yod hay vod hay(YHVH)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

Yes, it is describing Jehovah...giving a meaning to His name. The actual NAME comes in the next verse.