Why So Much Trinity Bashing?

[InChrist]

Again, the four verses I quoted describe the Nature of God, which does not change. CAN God incarnate? Yes. Will he? No, because that would violate his nature. It's the same as asking if God can sin. Can he? Yes. Will he? No, because that is contrary to his nature.

From the scriptures, I don’t see that it’s indicating God changed. It says He became flesh. It doesn’t say He gave up His eternal Divine Nature or that His God Nature changed; only that God took on human form. So since His God Nature remained intact and unchanging I see no inconsistency or contradiction with the scriptures.

 

[Brian2]

You are missing the point. I'm not here to convince you to believe otherwise -- if you want to believe Jesus is God, more power to you. My point here is only that this belief contradicts what is taught in the Tanakh (what Christians call the Old Testament).

On four separate occasions, the Tanakh either teaches that the nature of God is that he is not a man, or assumes that God is not a man in order to make another point. Four times.

The distinction of God from creation is one of the hallmarks of Judaism. It's what separates us from the pagan faiths. For us, God is not anything in nature, does not become anything in nature, should not even be represented in art by anything in nature. He is not a rock, or tree, or man, or sun, or storm.... Just as it is offensive to us to say that Caesar is god or Pharaoh is god, it is no different to say that Jesus is god.

You are missing the meaning of those 4 scriptures. They are not teaching that God is not a man, but that He is not a liar like humans are and does not change His mind like humans do.
Humans are made in the image of God however but we humans have a marred image because of our sins.
The Tanakh does not say that God cannot or will not become human.
If God decided to become a human He would be a human that did not lie or change His mind. His God nature would be able to overcome any weaknesses us humans have.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are missing the meaning of those 4 scriptures. They are not teaching that God is not a man, but that He is not a liar like humans are and does not change His mind like humans do.

YOU don't get it. If the reason that God is not a liar is BECAUSE HE IS NOT A MAN, it means the ASSUMPTION IS that it is not God's nature to be a man.

 

[Brian2]

YOU don't get it. If the reason that God is not a liar is BECAUSE HE IS NOT A MAN, it means the ASSUMPTION IS that it is not God's nature to be a man.

The assumption would be that men are liars and God is not like humans in that way. It is not in God's nature to lie.
Of course God is not a human or a part of His own creation but there is nothing in the Tanakh to say that God could not become a man if He wanted to.
If God were only the Father that would mean that the Father would end up as a man worshipping Himself. That sounds ungodly to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The assumption would be that men are liars and God is not like humans in that way. It is not in God's nature to lie.

You can't just read half the verse. The reason God doesn't lie is BECAUSE HE IS NOT A MAN.

 

[Brian2]

You can't just read half the verse. The reason God doesn't lie is BECAUSE HE IS NOT A MAN.

You are the one who want to read half the verse. You even put a full stop after "I am not a man." as if there is no more to the verses.
The meaning is "I am not like humans that lie."
The reason God does not lie is because God is God. God's honesty does not depend on what humans do and if God became a man He would not start lying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are the one who want to read half the verse. You even put a full stop after "I am not a man." as if there is no more to the verses.
The meaning is "I am not like humans that lie."

Oh, I definitely pasted only those parts of the verses that were to the point. But I also included the references so that anyone could look up the context if they so chose.

The reason God does not lie is because God is God. God's honesty does not depend on what humans do and if God became a man He would not start lying.

At least I correctly quoted the verses. You are just making up your own stuff. None of those verses says that the reason God does not lie is because he is God. None of them. That's just you talking.

And yes, if God hypothetically became a man, he would lie.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I've noticed on RF there are a lot of heretical (that's the technical term) Christians who disbelieve in the Trinity.

Why?

We've had the creeds since Late Antiquity (Apostolic, Nicaean, Athanasian) and they all include the Trinity, especially the latter, which is all about it. These creeds are regularly read in churches and have been for hundreds of years. If the Trinity were so easily disproven, why would it have held out and been accepted by the orthodox Christians? Why spend so much time fighting the Arians? And why, I'm sorry to ask, is it almost always Protestants? Do you think you know something that everybody in the early orthodox Church failed to grasp?

Why is there so much of this around lately? How do you explain how Jesus is God without the Trinity?

How do you explain the worship of Christ?

And why is it treated in such a light manner?

So besides actually believing that the bible says nothing about the Trinity these are other reasons I think people are against it:

1.The main one:
In order to claim that they are the only group teaching the truth. To do this effectively they have to point out how the mainstream church is wrong, and the Trinity, being as complicated as it is, is an easy target. So They bash the Trinity to further indoctrinate their followers or to at least catch peoples attention

2. The Trinity doesnt make logical sense to them. As if we can fully understand the makeup of god as to apply logic to its being. They can't explain anything else about it logically yet they harp on this.

3. The Trinity has a lot of different possible explanations, making a lot of supposedly Trinity worshippers "heretics", a and they squabble amongst each other. For instance a lot of Christians who explain the Trinity to me are explaining modalism, which is heretical, but they dont realise it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So besides actually believing that the bible says nothing about the Trinity these are other reasons I think people are against it:

1.The main one:
In order to claim that they are the only group teaching the truth. To do this effectively they have to point out how the mainstream church is wrong, and the Trinity, being as complicated as it is, is an easy target. So They bash the Trinity to further indoctrinate their followers or to at least catch peoples attention

2. The Trinity doesnt make logical sense to them. As if we can fully understand the makeup of god as to apply logic to its being. They can't explain anything else about it logically yet they harp on this.

3. The Trinity has a lot of different possible explanations, making a lot of supposedly Trinity worshippers "heretics", a and they squabble amongst each other. For instance a lot of Christians who explain the Trinity to me are explaining modalism, which is heretical, but they dont realise it.

4. Because the Bible says on four separate occasions that God is not a man.

 

[Brian2]

At least I correctly quoted the verses. You are just making up your own stuff. None of those verses says that the reason God does not lie is because he is God. None of them. That's just you talking.

I was not trying to quote the verses, I was trying to say what they meant and I also was saying why God does not lie, it is because of His nature.

And yes, if God hypothetically became a man, he would lie.

At least you are being consistent in your error.
What if God hypothetically became a man and had 2 natures, God nature and human nature? Would he then be able to overcome his sinful human nature with his good God nature?
If "no", how do you know that?
Hypothetically, if the only true God is the Father (as Jesus said) and the Son (who comes from God) became a man, does that mean that God became a man?

 

[Samael_Khan]

4. Because the Bible says on four separate occasions that God is not a man.

This too. But then that is more the issue of the NT not matching the OT.

If the bible conclusively and consistently said that Jesus is God, that of itself doesn't prove the Trinity to be true either.

 

[metis]

There's a difference between Jesus being God versus Jesus being of God, and I think the latter is far more logical. Same with the Holy Spirit, sometimes called "God's Spirit" in the Tanakh.

 

[Kenny]

The Nazarenes, which were a sect of Judaism, did not believe Jesus was God.

As with all the Jewish populace of that time… there were those who did and those who didn’t.

Correct. Messianic Jews today are Christians, with all the trappings and trimmings, including Trinitarianism. They overlook the Tanakh in favor of the New Testament no differently than any other Christian.

Yes, that is one point of view. The other point is that their understanding of scriptures were opened by Yeshua Hamashiach, Jesus Christ, and God’s Holy Spirit. There is so much in the TaNaKh, since is inspired by God.

As He said through the prophet, “My thoughts are higher than your thoughts”.

There zero verses in the Tanakh that speak of God "coming as a man." And that would contradict God's nature.

I disagree. The Jewish believers found it and God’s nature is love. Love brought His redemption into the world.

CAN God incarnate as a man? Yes. Will he? No, because it is contrary to his nature, just as he is not going incarnate as this rock or that tree.

I disagree. And I don’t think we have the capacity to say what He will do and what He won’t do. Obviously I, with other Jewish believers, not only believe He can but actually did and Isaiah was one prophet that understood this reality.

Many? Only 2% of American Jews are Christians.

Yes, many. Many tens of thousands in the inception and more after

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was not trying to quote the verses, I was trying to say what they meant and I also was saying why God does not lie, it is because of His nature.

I'm not sure you understand how you are coming across. I'm quoting verses that are analogous to "Dogs scratch because they have fleas," and your replies are analogous to "Dogs scratch because are mammals." IOW, while I have no objection to "God doesn't lie because that's not his nature," IT'S NOT WHAT THE VERSES ARE SAYING. You are deflecting from the reality of what is clearly in the text by trying to redirect to something else.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This too. But then that is more the issue of the NT not matching the OT.

Which happens a lot.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As with all the Jewish populace of that time… there were those who did and those who didn’t.

The idea that Jesus was God was not present at all in the Jewish population in Jerusalem. That idea would have been inconceivable. It was only in the Hellenized world that gods incarnated. You had Hellenized Jews like Paul, who came from Tarsus, who suggested Jesus was more than human. But mostly, the "Jesus is God" thing took hold when Gentiles came to dominate Christianity.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure you understand how you are coming across. I'm quoting verses that are analogous to "Dogs scratch because they have fleas," and your replies are analogous to "Dogs scratch because are mammals." IOW, while I have no objection to "God doesn't lie because that's not his nature," IT'S NOT WHAT THE VERSES ARE SAYING. You are deflecting from the reality of what is clearly in the text by trying to redirect to something else.

I suppose we have a different reality of what is in the text.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?
To my mind that is saying to God is not like humans who sometimes lie or change their mind for no good reason.
It is saying that humans sometimes lie and change their mind but that God is different and does not do these things.
It also is saying that God is not a man and cannot be likened to a man who might do those things.
It is not saying that God cannot or will not decide to become a man and it is not saying that if God became a man that He would automatically be a liar.

 

[Kenny]

The idea that Jesus was God was not present at all in the Jewish population in Jerusalem. That idea would have been inconceivable. It was only in the Hellenized world that gods incarnated. You had Hellenized Jews like Paul, who came from Tarsus, who suggested Jesus was more than human. But mostly, the "Jesus is God" thing took hold when Gentiles came to dominate Christianity.

Whether the Jewish population in Jerusalem did not believe that the Word was made flesh, I wouldn’t personally know that since I was not there. That being said, I trust the historical book of Acts 6:7 where it said, "The word of God kept spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” Those were the priests that lived in Jerusalem.

As far as Hellenized Jews, the book of Isaiah was written way before then so I wouldn’t agree with your point.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I suppose we have a different reality of what is in the text.

Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Whether the Jewish population in Jerusalem did not believe that the Word was made flesh, I wouldn’t personally know that since I was not there. That being said, I trust the historical book of Acts 6:7 where it said, "The word of God kept spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.” Those were the priests that lived in Jerusalem.

All of these converts lived in Jerusalem, not just the priests.

As far as Hellenized Jews, the book of Isaiah was written way before then so I wouldn’t agree with your point.

I'm going to regret asking. What does the book of Isaiah have to do with the Nazarenes?