Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[Kenny]

I believe He is not a trinity being.

Yes, we will have different viewpoint… and I am fine with that.

 

[Soapy]

Jesus is "Mighty God" in every good way I could possibly imagine, for all he did for us when he was on Earth, Jesus does not hesitate in doing his Father's will, and for what he continues to do in the heaven, he is a magnificent and Mighty King!

Quite right… I agree.

What you didn’t realise that you just did now was to give the definition I was looking for:
‘Mighty God’ in context as in ‘Mighty one of Humanity’; ‘The glorious one’; ‘The one who prevailed over all others’.

There were many MIGHTY ONES in the history of humanity, ones such as Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Joseph, David, Solomon, many prophets and holy men, even Holy Angels… YHWH GOD even called them ‘GODS’.

But NONE were even on the scale that Jesus was one - he was the MOST MIGHTY, THE MIGHTIEST, the God of all Gods of human greatness: the MIGHTY God…

Satan is a MIGHTY GOD of the angel form and God of the DEMONIC ones …

But we know that the DEITY, the Spirit GOD, YHWH, the Father, Jesus said, “Is greater than I”.
Jesus was a mighty ‘God’ in humanity - but YHWH is God above all whom are called ‘Gods’, whether man or angels.

The lesson taught is that we need a CONTEXT whenever we use the word, ‘God’. Failing to do so leads to many deviant claims and misinterpretations - something seized upon by Trinitarians to hell claim their fallacies of trinity.

 

[walt]

Quite right… I agree.

What you didn’t realise that you just did now was to give the definition I was looking for:
‘Mighty God’ in context as in ‘Mighty one of Humanity’; ‘The glorious one’; ‘The one who prevailed over all others’.

There were many MIGHTY ONES in the history of humanity, ones such as Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Joseph, David, Solomon, many prophets and holy men, even Holy Angels… YHWH GOD even called them ‘GODS’.

I agree with you here.

 

[SLPCCC]

Quite right… I agree.

What you didn’t realise that you just did now was to give the definition I was looking for:
‘Mighty God’ in context as in ‘Mighty one of Humanity’; ‘The glorious one’; ‘The one who prevailed over all others’.

There were many MIGHTY ONES in the history of humanity, ones such as Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Joseph, David, Solomon, many prophets and holy men, even Holy Angels… YHWH GOD even called them ‘GODS’.

But NONE were even on the scale that Jesus was one - he was the MOST MIGHTY, THE MIGHTIEST, the God of all Gods of human greatness: the MIGHTY God…

Satan is a MIGHTY GOD of the angel form and God of the DEMONIC ones …

But we know that the DEITY, the Spirit GOD, YHWH, the Father, Jesus said, “Is greater than I”.
Jesus was a mighty ‘God’ in humanity - but YHWH is God above all whom are called ‘Gods’, whether man or angels.

The lesson taught is that we need a CONTEXT whenever we use the word, ‘God’. Failing to do so leads to many deviant claims and misinterpretations - something seized upon by Trinitarians to hell claim their fallacies of trinity.

So, you believe in Henotheism. Christian monotheists don't believe in this. We believe that there is only one God. Everything else mentioned in scripture as gods are just rulers, fake gods, wannabe gods, self-made gods, and idols. There can only be One God. One who creates.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, what did Jesus himself say about that?
Luke 18:18,19

(I think you knew that.)

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

Where does this passage say that Jesus is not God?

Is Jesus exactly like His Father or not? Yes.
Is Jesus therefore good, like His Father is good? Yes.
Is Jesus therefore God, like His Father is God? Yes.

 

[Firenze]

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

Where does this passage say that Jesus is not God?

Is Jesus exactly like His Father or not? Yes.
Is Jesus therefore good, like His Father is good? Yes.
Is Jesus therefore God, like His Father is God? Yes.

Jesus says he's not good - that this god alone is good. Was Jesus lying? Confused?

 

[YoursTrue]

John 2:18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,[c] and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

When Jesus spoke these words there was only the Temple in Jerusalem and the temple of His body in which God lived.
His disciples were not a temple at that time.

So the Jews asked Jesus what sign would he show them for doing these things. You bring up an interesting question, so I looked at the previous verses to see more of the context. It says:
"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Peter also refers to Jesus' disciples as being a temple. "Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple."

Hope this helps to explain my viewpoint that when Jesus was raised up (or resurrected from the dead), the temple belonging to his disciples would also be back.

 

[walt]

Jesus said that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father. Jesus is the exact image of His Father. Jesus is good, just as His Father is good. And what does that logically mean if we believe what Jesus said? He said only God is good.
In the OT we find God asking:
Isa 40:25 To whom then will you compare me,
that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes on high and see:
who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
calling them all by name;
by the greatness of his might
and because he is strong in power,
not one is missing.

In the NT we find Jesus compared to God. It is Jesus who is exactly like God and the heavens are the work of Jesus hands. (Heb 1:10-12)
Jesus shines with the radiance of the glory of God and is exactly like God (Heb 1)
Jesus is said to have been equal to God before He became a man, the servant of God. (Phil 2)
Jesus said that He has all authority in heaven and on earth. (Matt 28)
Jesus is called "Almighty". (Rev 1:8)
Jesus is called God throughout the NT.
Jesus is called the Son of God throughout the NT.
What sort of Son would that be? It would be a Son who comes from His Father, the same essence and nature as His Father.
We KNOW that Jesus was not created because the Bible tells us that ALL THINGS were created through Him. So how can He be one of those created things?

You could find 100 scriptures that seem to prove a belief. So can I find 100 scriptures. This could go on forever.

Jesus and his Father will explain what I believe: John 3:16, 17:3, Luke 9:35, Matthew 17:5

Can you fully explain all the words that define the Trinity belief, by quoting Jesus and his Father's words alone?

The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are one God. These three are co-equal
co-eternal and co-existent. --This is the short version.

 

[YoursTrue]

• John 2: 19-22 - Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

You are twisting my words. I don't expect you to see it because you are fully indoctrinated. I love the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I always try to go out of my way to be extra nice to them because I know that they are being misled. So I will still try to help you here.

What you and the WT are doing here is using a red herring. In this case, it's designed to distract from the resurrection and the question: "Why did Jesus say that He would raise it up and didn't say that the Father would raise it up?"

Jesus indeed had a temple in His body—the very presence of God dwelling among us. Jesus' body is the new and true temple. (not the Jerusalem temple). The temple in Jerusalem was a shadow of a greater spiritual reality. (Jesus Body) His body pointed to the ultimate sacrifice and redemption that would take place through His death and resurrection. Through Jesus, we gain access to God. Just as people approached the temple to encounter God, we now have direct access to the Father through our union with Christ. Our bodies, too, become temples of the Holy Spirit. However, you avoided the question so you don't have to face the answer: "Why did Jesus say that He would raise it up and didn't say that the Father would raise it up?"

Think about it. I'll leave you with this and move on.

There could be more than one reason why Jesus would say that. He could be repeating his Father's promise to him ... and also that when resurrected, the following would take place, speaking of his faithful followers:
"And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What’s more, you are his holy priests. Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God."
(Just as Jesus cleansed the earthly temple in Jerusalem, his true disciples would be spiritually clean in God's eyes.)

 

[Brian2]

Yes God is everywhere but wouldn't you agree that we distinguish God from his creation even though God is found throughout?
All Gods "messengers" do Gods bidding. They are "sent" by God. Those that are sent by God are distinguished from begin God. Otherwise the phrase "sent by God" would be superfluous and meaningless. So what is the meaning of "sent" do you think?

God can be sent by God. We see this in places in the OT where an angel (messenger) of God is identified as God and speaks as if it is God. Not all angels do this, so the one that does this is probably God, who was sent by God.

And God is in us as well wouldn't you agree? Ephesians 4:6
New International Version
"...one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Yes.

This violates the simplicity of God. By definition a person is a unique entity with a unique will. It may be said each human being has one nature. That is we are all born with the same nature that makes each of us equally human yet we are clearly individuals in our personhood. We wouldn't declare that all of humanity is one being though. In like manner we shouldn't declare that God is one being yet can have 3 persons making up that one being.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have a different relationship with each other than humans have with each other.

I think if you actual read this sentence out loud you can understand why it confuses rather than explains.
By introducing a quantifiable quality to Gods essence you've effectively introduced modes to God as well. This too violates the monotheistic simplicity of the Christian God.
Simply using the word "they" in reference to God demands a confusing and meaningless interpretation.

One essence, 3 persons.
The 3 persons are not modes. Modalism is a completely different idea than the trinity.

The indivisible essence of God does not mean you can distinguish "parts" that is in that essence with labels such as "Son" and "Holy Spirit". Again these would be meaningless. We are all in God in that God sustains all things and all things come from God as scripture has said.

Why should God conform to human theory about God.
God reveals Himself, He does not conform.
All we can know is what has been revealed.
The Father is God and in the Father is His Son and His Spirit. In the Son is the Father and the Spirit. In the Spirit is the Father and the Son.

Trinitarian teaching most certainly equates Jesus with the "Son" portion of the Godhead.
This too isn't logically sustainable.
According to scripture:
1) Jesus was fully human. So human in fact that he was "new" Adam. Perfect in his nature...as a human. And as such, the perfect sacrificial lamb for humanities reconciliation.
2) Jesus only existed in time and for a duration...as a man. In other words Jesus -the man- was not an eternal being.
3) Jesus's nature - in trinitarian terms - was a "marriage" - Hypostatic union - of two natures human and divine into one individual personhood, presumably described by the made up Greek word of hypostasis - which attempts to describe a theoretical state but pretty much explains nothing.
4) God in trinitarian terms - the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - is an eternal being. Has always existed and will always exist.
5) Whatever Jesus was on earth in his "hypostatic" union he couldn't have been equated to the "Son" portion of the Godhead since the humanity of Jesus did not exist until his birth on earth. In other words Jesus's "personhood" created by that hypostatic union could not have been the "personhood" of the Son portion of the Godhead. That would cause a contradiction in God which is impossible to sustain in reality.
6) The alternative to 5) above is that God's essence changed to accommodate the new alignment of personhood created with the birth of Jesus on earth. That is a violation of how the Christian God has been defined.
The Trinitarian concept as described in Catholicism is logically unsustainable and consequently meaningless. The concept developed historically due more to political maneuvering than divine revelation. imho

1) Jesus is the Son of God as a human being.
2)Jesus existed as the Logos before becoming a man. Jesus is now a resurrected man with an immortal body. Jesus also is more, and inherits what is and was His before He became a man, and put His godhood aside for a time. iow He has lost nothing of His godhood by becoming a man.
3) I suppose 'hypostasis' tries to sum up what the scriptures tell us.
4)Yes I believe so.
5)Jesus is and has always been the Son who lived with God and in the form of God from eternity. This did not change when He became a man, iow, when He took a human body and became a man, having a servant nature.
Both the human and prehuman Son of God submits to His Father as a servant would, and both the prehuman and human Son is still the Son of God, equal in nature to His Father. The servant nature was added to His God nature and did not change much it seems anyway, since He has always submitted to His Father,,,,,,,,,,,,, who also became His God now that He is a human also.
6)God does not change and in the scriptures also Jesus has not changed even through becoming a man. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
We would like to be able to completely understand God and some people won't believe because they can't fully understand and explain. That however is not God's problem, God just reveals Himself, in the scriptures.

What is your idea of Jesus and the Holy Spirit that is compatable with the scriptures?

 

[Brian2]

Jesus says he's not good - that this god alone is good. Was Jesus lying? Confused?

Where does Jesus say that He is not good?

 

[blü 2]

Where does Jesus say that He is not good?

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.”

 

[Firenze]

Where does Jesus say that He is not good?

You just quoted him saying "only god alone is good". He didn't say "only those of us in the trinity are good." Are you confused as well?

 

[Brian2]

So the Jews asked Jesus what sign would he show them for doing these things. You bring up an interesting question, so I looked at the previous verses to see more of the context. It says:
"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Peter also refers to Jesus' disciples as being a temple. "Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple."

Hope this helps to explain my viewpoint that when Jesus was raised up (or resurrected from the dead), the temple belonging to his disciples would also be back.

Which temple was Jesus referring to when He said "Destroy this temple and in 3 days........."
They were in the stone temple and that was not rebuilt in 3 days, so that was not a sign that Jesus gave.
The temple that the disciples would become and in which God would dwell by His Spirit, was not in existence when Jesus said "Destroy this temple.........." So that cannot be the temple Jesus was referring to.
Let me think, what other temple was there that Jesus could have meant? Ah I know, God lived in Jesus, in His body and so that was a temple,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and oh yes, Jesus raised it (His body) up in 3 days after it was destroyed.
Since there was no "temple belonging to His disciples", that leaves one viable explanation to the scriptures.
And I do know why you believe what you do about John 2:19, because you are a JW.

 

[Brian2]

You just quoted him saying "only god alone is good". He didn't say "only those of us in the trinity are good." Are you confused as well?

The point of what Jesus said, (God alone is good) is imo, so that later generations, you and me, could read it and realise that because Jesus is exactly like God and was completely sinless, then Jesus was actually making a veiled revelation to us, that He was God.

 

[Brian2]

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.”

Yes but where does Jesus say that He is not good?

 

[blü 2]

God can be sent by God.

You mean God can divide [him]self into two distinct entities? In that case how can there be only one God? There could be a mouse plague of the durners!

One essence, 3 persons.
The 3 persons are not modes. Modalism is a completely different idea than the trinity.

So if they're three persons, each has a distinct will, therefore there are three gods.

OR if they have only one will, then they're just different faces, different masks, of the one entity.

Which is it?

Why should God conform to human theory about God.

Because [he] was devised by humans, of course, and if [he] gets too far from what humans want of their gods, [he] loses [his] following and becomes a dead god.

The Father is God and in the Father is His Son and His Spirit. In the Son is the Father and the Spirit. In the Spirit is the Father and the Son.

That's not what the NT says. In the NT Mark's Jesus is God's adopted son, just as David was God's adopted son. In Matthew and Luke Jesus is God's genetic son and has God's Y-chromosome (since clearly those Jesuses didn't get theirs from their mother). The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven with God (who made them there as [he] had made the angels &c). All five versions of Jesus expressly deny that they're God and never claim to be God.

It follows that if Jesus was in fact God his entire ministry was a con.

5)Jesus is and has always been the Son who lived with God and in the form of God from eternity. This did not change when He became a man, iow, when He took a human body and became a man, having a servant nature.

No, that's only said to be true of the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John. No such claim is made for any of the synoptic Jesuses. It certainly can't be true of Mark's Jesus, who's simply a young Jewish male until God adopts him as God had adopted David ((Psalm 2:7).

Both the human and prehuman Son of God submits to His Father as a servant would

So far so good.

and both the prehuman and human Son is still the Son of God, equal in nature to His Father.

Where does any NT version of Jesus say that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Which temple was Jesus referring to when He said "Destroy this temple and in 3 days........."
They were in the stone temple and that was not rebuilt in 3 days, so that was not a sign that Jesus gave.
The temple that the disciples would become and in which God would dwell by His Spirit, was not in existence when Jesus said "Destroy this temple.........." So that cannot be the temple Jesus was referring to.
Let me think, what other temple was there that Jesus could have meant? Ah I know, God lived in Jesus, in His body and so that was a temple,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and oh yes, Jesus raised it (His body) up in 3 days after it was destroyed.
Since there was no "temple belonging to His disciples", that leaves one viable explanation to the scriptures.
And I do know why you believe what you do about John 2:19, because you are a JW.

Whether I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not should not particularly enter into this discussion. So first let me ask you this: do you think his body was destroyed?

 

[walt]

Does anyone have any suggestions of how I can show kindness in my comments?

 

[YoursTrue]

The point of what Jesus said, (God alone is good) is imo, so that later generations, you and me, could read it and realise that because Jesus is exactly like God and was completely sinless, then Jesus was actually making a veiled revelation to us, that He was God.

"exactly LIKE God"? Either he was God or he was not. And it really all depends upon what you think God, or a god is.