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.

[onewithhim]

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

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

Not only that, but ehyeh actually means "I will be" as it is properly translated everwhere else in Moses' writings (starting with Exodus 3:12).

This also shows that "I AM" isn't necessarily what God said to Moses as to what his name meant. So how could Jesus have been quoting that at John 8:58? Did he really say, "Before Abraham was born, I WILL BE?"

That's laughable. Come on, people, think.

Exodus 3:14 didn't necessarily say "I Am" has sent you. It very well was probably "I Will Be" has sent you. And what Jesus said at John 8:58 does not show that Jesus was claiming to be God. He was simply saying, "Before Abraham was born, I was in existence.

[onewithhim]

CLEAR, BASIC CHALLENGES FOR THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

Your challenges maake 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.

I have heard it said that one believes in the Trinity because it is beyond human comprehension. Or words to that effect. If that is the case, one may as well believe in the gods of Olympus, the "invisible" return or Christ in 1914, etc, etc. Deists, Jews, mainline Christians, by contrast, see reason is a God-given faculty, and gaurdian against all sorts of absurd and sometimes atrocious notions.

The Episcopal Church (American equivalent of the Anglican) for example, rests on three pillars. Scripture, Tradition AND Reason. But I confess, I am not exactly sure how they reconcile their Creedal acceptance of the Trinity with the tenant of Reason. Some, like John Shelby Spong (author of "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism") have their ways.

I like your post.....with one exception. You disagree with JWs that Jesus "returned" in 1914. I am thinking that you don't understand what we are saying when we indicate that event ("returning"). We do not believe he came back in Kingdom power to bring the nations of Earth into submission (and eliminate the governments of men). This "coming" of Jesus is still in the future.

We say that Jesus took on the role as King, literally, in 1914. He began ruling, as the "times of the Gentiles" had run its course. (Luke 21:24) He has been guiding and directing his Church since then, getting them and the world ready for the coming Great Tribulation. When everything is done that can be reasonably be done regarding warning the world of the end of Satan's old system, then Jesus will "come" when no one will miss it. Everyone will know that he has acted to rid the world of evil, and they will know that the Sovereign of the universe is Jehovah (Ezekiel 15:7).

[onewithhim]

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.

But there is no reasonable evidence in the Bible that God is a trinity. He does NOT have "a triune nature." Show us from the Bible where He is "triune." And don't try the verses where three things are mentioned together (like Father, Son and H.S.). Those verses don't prove that those three things are all God-in-one.

[brianbbs67]

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

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

Not only that, but ehyeh actually means "I will be" as it is properly translated everwhere else in Moses' writings (starting with Exodus 3:12).

This also shows that "I AM" isn't necessarily what God said to Moses as to what his name meant. So how could Jesus have been quoting that at John 8:58? Did he really say, "Before Abraham was born, I WILL BE?"

That's laughable. Come on, people, think.

Exodus 3:14 didn't necessarily say "I Am" has sent you. It very well was probably "I Will Be" has sent you. And what Jesus said at John 8:58 does not show that Jesus was claiming to be God. He was simply saying, "Before Abraham was born, I was in existence.

We are thinking and so are you.

I will echo what tigger said and add that in English it would be closer to "I will be that which I will be". I agree with your use of Christ's words about Abraham. Its the context to some degree.

[onewithhim]

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

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

Not only that, but ehyeh actually means "I will be" as it is properly translated everwhere else in Moses' writings (starting with Exodus 3:12).

This also shows that "I AM" isn't necessarily what God said to Moses as to what his name meant. So how could Jesus have been quoting that at John 8:58? Did he really say, "Before Abraham was born, I WILL BE?"

That's laughable. Come on, people, think.

Exodus 3:14 didn't necessarily say "I Am" has sent you. It very well was probably "I Will Be" has sent you. And what Jesus said at John 8:58 does not show that Jesus was claiming to be God. He was simply saying, "Before Abraham was born, I was in existence.

We are thinking and so are you.

I will echo what tigger said and add that in English it would be closer to "I will be that which I will be". I agree with your use of Christ's words about Abraham. Its the context to some degree.

I apologize. I know you are a thinking person. Sadly, some people are not. It's like the Scripture says: "The god of this world [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God [not God]." (2 Corinthians 4:4, NASB)

I appreciate your comments.

[polonius]

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)

RESPONSE: Wasn't that passage remove from the Bible as being a later interpolation?

[polonius]

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)

RESPONSE: Wasn't that passage remove from the Bible as being a later interpolation?

"Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the spurious added text and omit it, including the New International Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New Testament.

“The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,� explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. “Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate� ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

[Elijah John]

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)

RESPONSE: Wasn't that passage remove from the Bible as being a later interpolation?

"Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the spurious added text and omit it, including the New International Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New Testament.

“The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,� explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. “Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate� ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

This begs the question "why was that addition made in the first place?" Isn't the addition/revision a tacit admission that actual Biblical evidence for support of the Trinity doctrine is insufficient, and at best only implied?

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

I will start by saying that in no way is my response meant to belittle either side of this enlightening debate. Very thought provoking and evidenced as well.
Unfortunately for me this debate arises from the misguided view that the bible is a literal piece of work. Unfortunately, for me this view of the bible leads to a tedious, hair splitting and finger pointing type of experience. Which scholarly opinion and bible do we use, do you allow for what may or may not be implied and how to determine it. In general Im pretty skeptical with the microscopic freeze frame of words approach but to each his own.
I guess what I'm saying is that lets assume that some how one side or the other convinces everyone to see it his way. Done deal, a literal seven day creation, no trinity, no flood and whatever factoids interest you thrown in to boot. Case closed.
Are you any closer to God? Of course not, you are stuck in the need to be right. Your experience of God looks like a list of true false statements centered around a book a group of guys wrote along time ago. Humans! Good luck with that.
So imho the fruits of this type of argument are dubious at best. Another fact farther away from an actual relationship with God.
Missing the forest because of a single tree. Tunnel vision.

Historically many people can be said to have demonstrated the spirit of God, fruits of divine wisdom and any other litmus test for determining a relationship with God. Different traditions and stories, same God. Many paths same destination. So knock yourself out trinity, no trinity, chances are you will get there as long as you seek.

Even more difficult and pertinent to the debate at hand is a missing piece of evidence and that is what was Jesus intention in all of this. As far as I know that is never clearly laid out by him.
Perhaps he was trying to free a society suffocating on the view of being unclean,sin,and sacrifice. Attempting to bridge the mechanical legalistic view of God to the Spiritual, fruit of the spirit view. Actions are easier to discern when intent is known.

That's my two cents worth. God is God. A three in one mystery or not. Nothing to gain, nothing to lose.

[onewithhim]

I will start by saying that in no way is my response meant to belittle either side of this enlightening debate. Very thought provoking and evidenced as well.
Unfortunately for me this debate arises from the misguided view that the bible is a literal piece of work. Unfortunately, for me this view of the bible leads to a tedious, hair splitting and finger pointing type of experience. Which scholarly opinion and bible do we use, do you allow for what may or may not be implied and how to determine it. In general Im pretty skeptical with the microscopic freeze frame of words approach but to each his own.
I guess what I'm saying is that lets assume that some how one side or the other convinces everyone to see it his way. Done deal, a literal seven day creation, no trinity, no flood and whatever factoids interest you thrown in to boot. Case closed.
Are you any closer to God?

I think it is vital that we know God---who he is, what his purposes are for the earth and for humans, what kind of individual he is, etc. Jesus said that it means our lives---getting to know God (John 17:3). He's either a trinity or he's not. If he is not, then a whole lot of people have been mis-informed. Does the Bible really tell us that he is three Gods? I think it is imperative that we become truly informed. How can we worship God properly if we think he is three Gods and actually he is one? I think I am closer to God since I have seen from close examination of the Bible that he is not a trinity but is one--the Father--whom Jesus called "my God." (I Corinthians 8:6; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12)