Five Major Problems With The Trinity

[Guest Kurt]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jesus.defender]

LOL. what a load of nonsense.

 

I can post links to MANY videos proving the trinity. 

 

Doing it that way will get us nowhere, my friend.

 

Many people forget that Jesus existed LONG before He came to earth.

 

Funny, i was looking at a rainbow yesterday.

 

I was thinking, wow, people can see that light can be parted into different colors, but they refuse to believe that God is capable of splitting Himself into three personages ( for lack of a better phrase ).

Also, ask any chemist about the "triple point of water" where simple H2O can exist as liquid, solid and gas AT THE SAME TIME.

 

What a shame you people limit God.

 

re: the Greek or Hebrew characters in the video thumbnail? Big deal! WHICH manuscripts are they from?

 

Many people FOOLISHLY think that the Bible came from one manuscript line.

[Evacuated]

On 6/25/2018 at 7:51 AM, Jesus.defender said:

I can post links to MANY videos proving the trinity. 

You're in the wrong job if you could do that my friend. No one alive, or dead, can prove the trinity, and never has.

[Jesus.defender]

On 7/12/2018 at 10:20 AM, Gone Away said:

You're in the wrong job if you could do that my friend. No one alive, or dead, can prove the trinity, and never has.

you are a fool to say "no one" as you dont KNOW everyone.

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

you are a fool to say "no one" as you dont KNOW everyone.

Come now. Don't get testy....You know there is as much proof of the trinity as there is for...........abiogenesis!

[TrueTomHarley]

I posted this elsewhere on this forum. Now I see that it fits better here:

Richard Lowell Bryant, a United Methodist minister, rained on ‘Trinity Sunday’ recently by declaring of the doctrine: We made it up, saying in part:

 “The truth is:  God was nowhere to be found when we made up the Trinity and turned it into a tool to isolate, annoy, and explain God’s expansive love in terms of dysfunctional family.”

http://um-insight.net/perspectives/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-trinity

His brethren men and women of the cloth hastened to correct him. Especially did one Dr. Hunter, who says: “Several of my students sent me the article, knowing the central place the doctrine of the Trinity holds in the courses I teach at United Theological Seminary.” Dr. Hunter responds with a twelve-paragraph reproof to his fellow minister.

https://goodnewsmag.org/2018/07/in-defense-of-the-holy-trinity/

Two things can be observed about his reply.

1. It will barely be comprehensible to the person of common sense, and

2. No appeal is made to scripture for support, a tacit admission that none is to be found there. After all, the New Testament is the origin, if not the blueprint, of Christianity. Is it not telling that he does not go there?

He goes there only a little, to cite John 16 and Jesus’ statement therein that the helper will come along later and reveal all things. He appears to have in mind, per a previous paragraph, the decree of the Council of Nicaea, which took place 300 years after Christ, and in which the Doctor expresses confidence that it was directed by Holy Spirit. But as to the scriptures themselves teaching a triune God—zip. He doesn’t touch it.

The Bible verses can be tortured for that meaning, of course, but tortured is what they must be. They involve taking literally numerous passages which, in any other context, would instantly be recognized as figure of speech. However, it does serve to complicate the obvious and thus serves to supply Dr. Hunter with a teaching career.

Not that Dr. Hunter is a bad man. No, he possibly is a very good man. But he is likely a product of what Jesus spoke of long ago to religious leaders of his day: “Woe to you who are versed in the Law, because you took away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not go in, and you hinder those going in!”

Since they took the key away, later generations don’t necessarily know that there is a key.

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/most-church-doctrines-are-not-found-in-the-bible.html

 

 

[JW Insider]

I was reading up on the Russian Orthodox Church and noticed that they have an unusually high number of books (apparently) which defend the idea that the "Church" must have more mystery. Both these articles you linked tend to want to make the relationship of God to Christ [and the holy spirit] a "mystery." The first guy says it's a mystery so we shouldn't have tried to make up stuff about it. The Trinity defender says it's a mystery and that's why we should keep using the terms as they have developed over the last couple millennia about the Trinity.

For thousands of years, I suppose that priests (including the "academic priesthood") have discovered that even so-called knowledge is power.

[JW Insider]

The video with the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 caught my attention. I've used this in discussions of Trinity as evidence that the NWT has found a fair (but literal) translation of the verse. I wondered what scholars have said about it lately and found a very accessible page about it here:

http://www.equip.org/article/jehovahs-witnesses-john-11-new-evidence-advances-discussion/

The overall intent of the write-up is to dismiss the NWT. But it is illuminating in that the writer has so much trouble finding other Coptic evidence that might apply. He twice advances the possibility that this 2nd to 4th century manuscript might actually be from a different perspective than that of the Nicene creed. In other words, non-Trinitarian. But after considering as much relevant evidence as deemed necessary, the writer concludes something which is exactly in line with our own understanding of the verse.

• Likewise, I am aware of this new evidence, and have weighed the various options.
• At the end of the day, I believe the best explanation of all three occurrences of the indefinite article in the Sahidic Coptic version of the New Testament is the qualitative one. Therefore, John 1:1c should read: ‘and the Word [Jesus] possesses the same qualities as God.’ This scholarly supported category contextually fits other, grammatically similar passages and best corresponds with what is attested elsewhere—scripturally and historically.

The writer thinks it is so important to get rid of the very literal translation "a god" that he doesn't seem to realize that he has actually found agreement with our own position about the verse in that it means "a god" (or even "a God") in the sense of having the same divine qualities as God. This of course fits the context, the rest of the book of John, and helps explain what have seemed to be other difficult passages in Trinity discussions.