Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[IndigoChild5559]

So you guys are saying you know better than the men closer to the Apostles, the men who drew up the creeds and wrote the theological texts?

The men who read the Bible in its original languages?

You know better?

Yeap. That's pretty much how they feel. Like I said, today, every Protestant Christian is their own pope.

 

[blü 2]

I believe the scriptures present the triune nature of God; both Old and New Testaments. I also think God’s triune nature is stamped upon creation and the universe displays this reality.

Why so much disbelief, rejection and/or attack?
My thoughts are that it’s a spiritual attack on the very Nature and Being of God and the truth of Whom He has revealed Himself to be to humanity through His Word, creation, and the Person of Jesus Christ.
Truth is often attacked with lies.

The Trinity

Many Christians are at a loss to understand, much less to defend, the "Trinity." Critics argue that that word is not even found in the Bible. To deal with that issue, we must begin with God,

www.thebereancall.org

As I pointed out back at #9 ,the Trinity has no basis in scripture, since the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke, the Jesus of John and through Paul, the Jesus of Paul, each expressly deny that they're God and nowhere claim to be God. Here are a few of the quotes ─ I should mention them to @Rival too:

Paul
Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Mark 12
29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ [...]
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:
23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:
18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 8
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 17:
3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

John 20
17 Jesus said to her, “[...] go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

 

[InChrist]

As I pointed out back at #9 ,the Trinity has no basis in scripture, since the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke, the Jesus of John and through Paul, the Jesus of Paul, each expressly deny that they're God and nowhere claim to be God. Here are a few of the quotes ─ I should mention them to @Rival too:

Paul
Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Mark 12
29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;
30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ [...]
32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:
23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:
18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 8
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 17:
3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

John 20
17 Jesus said to her, “[...] go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

I don’t think correct understanding of the Triune Nature of the Godhead (Trinity) contradicts anything in the Bible, including the scriptures you listed. The scriptures clearly present ONE God comprised of three Personal beings.

 

[blü 2]

I don’t think correct understanding of the Triune Nature of the Godhead (Trinity) contradicts anything in the Bible,

As I noted before, declaring it to be 'a mystery in the strict sense' is the same thing as admitting it's nonsense. No support is found for it in the NT ─ on the contrary all versions of Jesus say clearly that they're not God.

The scriptures clearly present ONE God comprised of three Personal beings.

No. They don't. Nowhere does Jesus claim to be God. Everywhere he claims to be God's envoy. God is his boss, not his other job.

And I'm not aware of any quote that suggests the Ghost is a separate entity ranking equally with Jesus, let alone with God.

If that's wrong, please quote me the relevant NT verses, because at present, as far as I know there are none.

 

[InChrist]

As I noted before, declaring it to be 'a mystery in the strict sense' is the same thing as admitting it's nonsense. No support is found for it in the NT ─ on the contrary all versions of Jesus say clearly that they're not God.

No. They don't. Nowhere does Jesus claim to be God. Everywhere he claims to be God's envoy. God is his boss, not his other job.

And I'm not aware of any quote that suggests the Ghost is a separate entity ranking equally with Jesus, let alone with God.

If that's wrong, please quote me the relevant NT verses, because at present, as far as I know there are none.

I think you’re missing the important point that the Son became flesh/human.. meaning He left (temporarily) His position in the eternal realm as God. That is the reason we see in the Gospels Jesus speaking to or about His Father as above Himself; He is speaking from His time on earth while in human form. As well, as giving example to His followers concerning humility in relating to God the Father.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren…”



In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John :1-5
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

 

[blü 2]

I think you’re missing the important point that the Son became flesh/human.. meaning He left (temporarily) His position in the eternal realm as God.

That could only be true of the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, each of whom pre-existed with God in heaven and also created the material universe (as the gnostic demiurge, it appears) despite anything you might read in Genesis. Either of those Jesuses could have said, 'Before Abraham was, I am' ─ but both of them acknowledged God as a distinct entity and sole boss. The situation is different with the Jesus of Mark, who was just an ordinary Jewish lad till straight after his baptism by JtB God adopted him in the same way [he]'d adopted David in Psalm 2:7. Not true either of the Jesuses of Matthew or of Luke, who didn't exist before divine insemination of a virgin brought them into being.

That is the reason we see in the Gospels Jesus speaking to or about His Father as above Himself; He is speaking from His time on earth while in human form. As well, as giving example to His followers concerning humility in relating to God the Father.

You're free to believe whatever pleases you, but the NT gives you no support. There, all five versions of Jesus expressly deny they're God.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren…”

Of course Psalm 8:5 is referring to humanity, not to Jesus. The link between 'Son of man' and 'messiah' doesn't occur before Daniel, long after Psalms. But of course the NT authors, including the unknown author of Hebrews 2:6, were always fishing round for quotes from the Tanakh that they could press-gang into service as pleased them.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John :1-5

But nowhere does the author of John equate his Jesus with God. His Jesus was merely a very high-ranking citizen of heaven. Thus John's Jesus makes his position plain with lines such as ─

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”​

​

John 530 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”​

​

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...​

​

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.​

​

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.​

​

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

​

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “[...] go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

 

[Ebionite]

It's generally taken to be the way the God of the Tanakh identified [him]self, and the God of the Tanakh was the Jewish God hence the God of Jesus, who you'll recall was a circumcised Jew (Luke 1:59).

You're confusing the plurality of beings called Elohim with the singular deity of Jesus. The word "God" can be a translation of both singular and plural words.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What I am seeing here is, inherited from Protestantism usually, a dislike of authority and Tradition. As someone used to the Anglican Church, which has both, this form of Christianity and other beliefs is strange to me. I don't know what then they are basing their religion on because the Bible was not completed until hundreds of years after the Church came into existence. Every religion is a cultural tradition, and oral story, a narrative. To then take this out seems to completely undercut religion itself. As someone studying theology this has become even more stark to me, given how oddly people are interpreting Biblical books in line with, as you said, cultural norms etc. which are wholly inappropriate. The fact of them throwing out the people who decided which books make up the Bible in the first place also strikes me as shooting oneself in the foot; it's akin to saying 'everything we believe they got right, but everything we don't they didn't'. That's incredibly uncomfortable a position to take because it means nothing could ever prove you wrong, no matter how many ancient authorities disagree with you.

I guess folks like myself are much more comfortable with authority and Tradition, given these towering intellects, closeness to the time period, knowledge of the ancient languages in their native settings etc. It strikes me that folks will just literally throw them out because 'THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS' as though these authorities had never... read those books? It's just so confusing. Just because they didn't reach the same conclusions a 19th c. Protestant did.

Yes, the Bible was also part of the tradition(s), just in written form. But this doesn't mean that the legends reflect 100% what really happened. And there were different traditions as we see from comparing the NT books... Since the 17th century the scholars have applied historical criticism.

 

[blü 2]

You're confusing the plurality of beings called Elohim with the singular deity of Jesus. The word "God" can be a translation of both singular and plural words.

I know very little about biblical Hebrew, so I'm reliant on people expert in it. However, as I understand it, when Elohim means more than one god, the verb form is plural, and when Elohim means the bible God the verb form is singular, so there are grammatical clues to the intended meaning.

 

[Firenze]

I don’t think correct understanding of the Triune Nature of the Godhead (Trinity) contradicts anything in the Bible, including the scriptures you listed. The scriptures clearly present ONE God comprised of three Personal beings.

And yet at least one of those personal beings is ignorant of what another personal being knows - "...that day and hour..."
Under what logic would a triune god keep information away from its other selves?

 

[InChrist]

And yet at least one of those personal beings is ignorant of what another personal being knows - "...that day and hour..."
Under what logic would a triune god keep information away from its other selves?

I don’t see it as ignorance, but a deliberate choice. While on earth in human flesh, the Son/Jesus purposefully chose to limit Himself, submitting to His Father. I have no doubt that at this point the Only Son knows full well the “day and the hour “.

 

[Ebionite]

I know very little about biblical Hebrew, so I'm reliant on people expert in it. However, as I understand it, when Elohim means more than one god, the verb form is plural, and when Elohim means the bible God the verb form is singular, so there are grammatical clues to the intended meaning.

You don't have to be an expert to use a resource like Blue Letter Bible. The ambiguity is evident from both plural and singular words being translated as "God".

1:1 בּראשׁית בּרא אלהים את השּׁמים ואת הארץ׃
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1 :: King James Version (KJV)

Genesis 1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

www.blueletterbible.org

6:4 שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינוּ יהוה אחד׃
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Deuteronomy 6 :: King James Version (KJV)

Deuteronomy 6 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:

www.blueletterbible.org

The grammar associated with אלהים is typically singular, which relates to the singular nature of a group of beings. Exodus 3 is a good example of this.

 

[InChrist]

I know very little about biblical Hebrew, so I'm reliant on people expert in it. However, as I understand it, when Elohim means more than one god, the verb form is plural, and when Elohim means the bible God the verb form is singular, so there are grammatical clues to the intended meaning.

If Elohim only means-more than one god, then why is the term used in the Tanakh
where the doctrine of ONE God is repeatedly taught?

“Moreover, if God is a single Being, then why is the plural Hebrew noun elohim (literally "gods") used for God repeatedly? In fact, this plural noun is in the center of Israel's famous confession of the oneness of God! The Shemadeclares, "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4; Mk 12:29). In the Hebrew it reads, "Jehovah our elohim [gods] is one [echad] Jehovah." The Hebrew word echad allows for a unity of more than one. For example, it is used in Genesis:2:24 where man and woman become one flesh; in Exodus:36:13
when the various parts "became onetabernacle"; in 2 Samuel:2:25
when many soldiers "became one troop"; and elsewhere.

Nor is the word elohim the only way in which God's plurality is presented. For example: Psalm:149:2, "Let Israel rejoice in him that made him" (literally "makers"); Ecclesiastes:12:1, "Remember now thy Creator (lit. "creators"); and Isaiah:54:5, "For thy Maker is thine husband (lit."makers, husbands"). Unitarianism has no explanation for this consistent presentation of God's plurality all through the Old Testament. Although the word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible, the concept is clearly there, providing the unity and diversity which makes possible the love, fellowship and communion within the Godhead. Truly the trinitarian God is love—and He alone.”

The Trinity

Many Christians are at a loss to understand, much less to defend, the "Trinity." Critics argue that that word is not even found in the Bible. To deal with that issue, we must begin with God,

www.thebereancall.org

 

[InChrist]

That could only be true of the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, each of whom pre-existed with God in heaven and also created the material universe (as the gnostic demiurge, it appears) despite anything you might read in Genesis. Either of those Jesuses could have said, 'Before Abraham was, I am' ─ but both of them acknowledged God as a distinct entity and sole boss. The situation is different with the Jesus of Mark, who was just an ordinary Jewish lad till straight after his baptism by JtB God adopted him in the same way [he]'d adopted David in Psalm 2:7. Not true either of the Jesuses of Matthew or of Luke, who didn't exist before divine insemination of a virgin brought them into being.


You're free to believe whatever pleases you, but the NT gives you no support. There, all five versions of Jesus expressly deny they're God.


Of course Psalm 8:5 is referring to humanity, not to Jesus. The link between 'Son of man' and 'messiah' doesn't occur before Daniel, long after Psalms. But of course the NT authors, including the unknown author of Hebrews 2:6, were always fishing round for quotes from the Tanakh that they could press-gang into service as pleased them.


But nowhere does the author of John equate his Jesus with God. His Jesus was merely a very high-ranking citizen of heaven. Thus John's Jesus makes his position plain with lines such as ─

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”​

​

John 530 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”​

​

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...​

​

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.​

​

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.​

​

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

​

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “[...] go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

The scriptures you’ve listed only reiterate the biblical teaching that the Son became flesh/human, therefore fully God/fully human. As the only such unique Being, He Alone is qualified and capable of saving humanity.
While in human form on earth, Jesus fully submitted to and gave glory to His Father as his God… because He was/is our perfect example.

 

[walt]

The majority of scriptures point in one direction, a few scriptures don't seem to agree.. So I asked myself, how will I ever figure this out? For example so many scriptures explain Jesus and his Father in a father and son relationship.. The overwhelming majority of scriptures do. But a few like John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. but if you look at 50 Different Bibles, they say something different. Many say "the Word was God". another "a God" another "divine" another "God-like".

Just a few scriptures further at John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time.. This scripture does not disagree on this point, if you look at 50 Bibles, So if you consider no man has seen God at any time and all Jesus Words, I just pick the bible translation that agrees with Jesus Words and John 1:18

Also The Apostle John writes, well after Jesus ministry and ascension to the heavens at
1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God.. NIV

 

[blü 2]

If Elohim only means-more than one god, then why is the term used in the Tanakh
where the doctrine of ONE God is repeatedly taught?

As I said, my information is that Elohim has two uses, one to indicate the bible God with singular verb, one to indicate a plurality of gods with plural verb. You will not have failed to notice that the Tanakh is henotheistic until the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Firenze]

As I said, my information is that Elohim has two uses, one to indicate the bible God with singular verb, one to indicate a plurality of gods with plural verb. You will not have failed to notice that the Tanakh is henotheistic until the Babylonian captivity.

My understanding says that Elohim only means 'the gods' and that when the Tanakh was scoured to remove references to the Hebrews original polytheism, the redactors simply did a poor job and left in Elohim intact. The decision was made to pretend it referenced the 'majestic plural', which although that concept exists in other religions, there's no record of it being used in Hebrew eschatology until people started to logically question - "Why does the text say 'the gods' created if there is only 1 god?' We see other evidence of the poor redactions in the verses in the Tanakh that are originally from the Ugaritic texts from Canaan that explain how the 70 sons of El were given tribes to lord over, and '... the Lords (Yahwehs) portion was Jacob' (Israel). The Hebrews then borrowed El and El Shaddai and blended these terms to only apply to Yahweh - thus erasing their polytheism, ostensibly to present the face that they were always monotheists.

 

[blü 2]

The scriptures you’ve listed only reiterate the biblical teaching that the Son became flesh/human, therefore fully God/fully human. As the only such unique Being, He Alone is qualified and capable of saving humanity.
While in human form on earth, Jesus fully submitted to and gave glory to His Father as his God… because He was/is our perfect example.

Only John says the Word was made flesh, and as I've shown you, John's Jesus is emphatic that he isn't God and that the Father is God and that he Jesus worships the Father as God. And of course the idea that Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God is only found with Paul's Jesus and John's Jesus, and not at all with the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke.

 

[blü 2]

My understanding says that Elohim only means 'the gods' and that when the Tanakh was scoured to remove references to the Hebrews original polytheism, the redactors simply did a poor job and left in Elohim intact. The decision was made to pretend it referenced the 'majestic plural', which although that concept exists in other religions, there's no record of it being used in Hebrew eschatology until people started to logically question - "Why does the text say 'the gods' created if there is only 1 god?' We see other evidence of the poor redactions in the verses in the Tanakh that are originally from the Ugaritic texts from Canaan that explain how the 70 sons of El were given tribes to lord over, and '... the Lords (Yahwehs) portion was Jacob' (Israel). The Hebrews then borrowed El and El Shaddai and blended these terms to only apply to Yahweh - thus erasing their polytheism, ostensibly to present the face that they were always monotheists.

When was the Tanakh "scoured to remove references to the Hebrews; original polytheism"? It's full of references to other gods, but that stops at around Isaiah. Examples include Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Psalms 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 and my favorite from Judges 11 ─

23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.​

 

[Firenze]

When was the Tanakh "scoured to remove references to the Hebrews; original polytheism"? It's full of references to other gods, but that stops at around Isaiah. Examples include Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Psalms 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 and my favorite from Judges 11 ─

23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.​

I'd have to find my old notes, and I'm out of town at present.
But it was likely from 'Is it Gods Word' by Joseph Wheless. He related the actions of 'the redactors' and their not surprising efforts to remove any references to the pantheon of gods they worshipped for some 2 centuries in Canaan. I mean, there are obvious problems with claiming there is only 1 god if you worshipped others for so long. That's a much different claim from simply saying they acknowledge the other gods, but theirs is the best. And bringing up those other gods is, IME, when the response becomes either "it's allegorical" or "those peoples gods were not real".