Why the Trinity stands the test of time.

Good to see you back among the threads, Dave. Welcome.

No one can prove the Trinity does not exist. That's not often considered a strong argument.

• You can't prove that you've never committed murder, therefore... you must have committed murder?
• I can't prove there aren't five-headed tarantulas with frog feet and horse-like tails living somewhere on earth, therefore... there must be five-headed tarantulas with frog feet and horse-like tails living somewhere on earth?

I don't say the Trinity doesn't exist - it clearly does exist as a theological construct faithfully embraced by billions of Christians over the centuries. I say the vast majority of the biblical witness - both the Old Testament and the New - reports that Jesus was not and could not have been God. (For a sense of how I read the biblical record presented in Matthew's Gospel, review my assessment of about two dozen matthean texts in THIS THREAD. I would welcome your response to the texts presented in that thread.)

A charge like this is easy to make, but not so easy to prove, at least in this case. Please accept my challenge to do so here by directly addressing the challenge I have already posed to @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus:

• I contend that Matthew 12.15-21 is a critical passage. In v.16, Jesus warns those he has healed “not to reveal who he was.” In v.17, Matthew tells us of the fulfillment of an Isaianic prophecy (Isaiah 42.1-4) in which the prophet quotes God’s reference to “my Servant, whom I have chosen. He is my beloved, whom I have chosen. He is my Beloved, who pleases me. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations....” That is, for Matthew, Jesus is God’s servant, one God chose and on whom God put God’s spirit (c.f. Matthew 3.16-17) I contend that the distinction between God and Jesus here, at least for the Gospel writer, is quite clear. Where in the text do you find reason to dispute my interpretation?

You claim that "antitrinitarians" "butcher scripture trying to make it fit their ideas." Here's your chance to validate your claim, Dave. As one who apparently claims not to "butcher scripture," surely you will be able to demonstrate the errors of my take on the Matthew 12 text.

Matthew 5.44-45: 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. 

Matthew 5.48: But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 6.1: “Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. 

Matthew 6.6: But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you. 

Matthew 6.9: Pray like this:  Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy. 

Matthew 6.15: But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins. 

Matthew 6:18: Then no one will notice that you are fasting, except your Father, who knows what you do in private. And your Father, who sees everything, will reward you. 

Matthew 10.20; Matthew 10.29

Matthew 23.19: And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father.

Mark 11.25: But when you are praying, first forgive anyone you are holding a grudge against, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your sins, too.” 

Luke 6.36: You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate. 

Luke 12.32: “So don’t be afraid, little flock. For it gives your Father great happiness to give you the Kingdom. 

John 20.17: “Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” 

In my view, those verses clearly demonstrate 1) that Jesus considered God to be everyone's "Father," not just his own; and 2) that Jesus considered God to be our "Father" (and God) in the same way God was his own "Father" (and God).

By your argument, Dave, since God is your "Father" and mine, you and I must be God, just as our human fathers make us human.

I look forward to your reply. It's good to see you back in the forums.

what about the human mother, Dave?

If only there wee an abundance of Scripture showing God is a trinity ... 😉 Actually -- and, please note -- trinity adherents all agree that the trinity is not even mentioned once in the Biblical Scriptures.

Neither of these responses even mentions, let alone directly responds to, the matters I raised for your consideration in my previous post.

1. The fact that I can't prove the Trinity doesn't exist is not a strong argument. You can't prove that you've never robbed a bank. Does that mean we should conclude you've robbed a bank? Obviously not. The point I make is not that the concept doesn't exist, but rather that according to the vast majority of the biblical witness, Jesus is not and could not be God.
2. I contend that Matthew 12.15-21 is a critical passage because Matthew describes Jesus as the fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah 42 in which God chooses and pours God's spirit on a "servant." That's NOT the description of a member of the Godhead.
3. I cited 14 Gospels passages in which Jesus clearly declares God to be our "Father" in the same way God is his "Father." By your logic, then, you and I must be God because God is our "Father," and that makes us God the same way "human fathers make us human."

In a previous post you claimed that people who hold my point of view about the Trinity "butcher Scripture trying to make it fit their ideas." Here's your chance to show us what you mean and to demonstrate how I "butcher Scripture" when I interpret Matthew 12 and the 14 other texts the way I do. I will welcome and respond directly to your reply.

Yes ... BUT this not the same as "God and Man". Adam was the Son of God without a human father ..was he too God?

I don't care what creeds say ... especially if they say things which they themselves can't even explain (such as "fully human nature and a fully divine nature") and purposely mingle and confuse.

By the way, believers in Christ are partakers of human nature and are partakers of the divine nature (2Pe 1:4) ...Dave, according to your creeds logic, you would also be man and God???

A puppy is a dog because BOTH the father and mother are dogs ...

What then happened in the case of Jesus? Did God's miraculous working bring about a human being or a God?? Did his mother Mary give birth to God or a human baby??

Hmn ... So you flat out contradict yourself: FIrst you claim because God fathered Jesus, Jesus is God, here then you say that one cannot say that the Son of God because his Father is God.

It seems rather clear that your claim about Trinity and Jesus (the Son of God) is God is a grave error.

Who said he was not the Son of God? Jesus was the only begotten Son of God as the records in Mt 1:18-25 and also Lk 1:35ff tell.

And, please note, those records tell that Jesus was a human, a male child, born of a human mother. All those born of women are human. Women do not give birth to God or "baby Gods", do they?

@Dave_L ... thanks for a long list of verses from the NT, that all say what has been said by all forum participants all along ... that the man Jesus is THE SON OF GOD.

What was the purpose of your post with all those verses? what did you mean to show or prove with this list of verses? I would hope that you noticed while posting the verses that NOT ONE verse says or teaches that "Son of God" = "God" ... or that Jesus is God.

Impossible idea ..

Since Mary could not give birth to a different species, it follows that God miraculously caused the conception of a HUMAN being in Mary. Furthermore, there are no TWO SPECIES living beings, except perhaps in human devised mythologies where you find "God-men" and "man-Gods"

Thus, you believe that God has a mother and Mary actually gave birth to God (or was it a half-God?)

@Dave_L ... elevating a creed from 451AD above Scripture ... thanks for clarifying

Dave,

Thanks for your response to my post. There are some issues around the verse submitted. I am surprise Wolfgang didn't pointed it out to you (not that he knows everything). It doesn't lesson the "Trinity" concept throughout the Bible in my mind. However, I wanted to remind you of the concerns some may have when it comes to 1 John 5:7-8.

In the following examples the King James Version differs from the NIV, and NASV. because it bases it's translation on the Byzantine text-type and the NIV and NASV base theirs on the Alexandrian text-type. 

1. KJV 1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."
2. NIV 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that testify: v. 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood: and the three are in agreement."
3. When Erasmus first printed the Greek New Testament in 1514 it did not contain the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth," because they were not found in any of the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus looked at.
4. These words were not quoted by any of the Greek church fathers. They most certainly would have been used by the church fathers in their 3rd and 4th century letters if found in the Greek manuscripts available to them.
5. These words are not found in any ancient versions of the New Testament. These include Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, nor in the Old Latin in its early form.
6. These words begin to appear in marginal notes in the Latin New Testament beginning in the fifth century. From the sixth century onward these words are found more and more frequently.
7. Erasmus finally agreed to put these words into new editions of his Greek New Testament if his critic's could find one Greek manuscript that contained these words. It appears that his critics manufactured manuscripts to include these words.
8. These additional words are found in only eight manuscripts as a variant reading written in the margin. Seven of these manuscripts date from the sixteenth century and one is a tenth century manuscript.
9. Erasmus' New Testament became the basis for the Greek New Testament, "Textus Receptus", which the King James translators used as the basis for their translation of the New Testament into English.

Notwithstanding, a passage is understood within a context of chapter, a book and the rest of the Bible. In view of this, God is One (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I hope this help? CM

SOURCES:

1. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998
2. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1995.
3. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.
4. Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of The New Testament an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995
5. Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995
6. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart, United Bible Societies, 1995.

I agree with you as to the freedom of choice available to posters in these forums.

As to my "self-imposed restriction," I offered a comprehensive review of the reasons for it and the circumstances under which it would end in PMs I sent to you on October 3 and November 23. Please advise if for some reason those PMs are no longer in your Inbox; I will re-post them to you. Alternatively, if you request, I will post the content of those PMs in this or a new public thread.

I'm not certain what it means to "regurgitate nebulous conversations," but if in this instance it refers to raising a matter that neither of us has mentioned in more than a month (i.e. since my November 23 PM) then it seems to me that by your latest post you've committed the regurgitation, not I. I've been and remain content to allow the matter to lie in its current state permanently, without further notice either in public posts or PMs. You're the one who has raised the matter to our attention again, not I.

I encourage you to revisit the PMs I sent you on this matter, CM. Because, as I explained in those messages, a matter of principle involved, for me this is NOT an "insignificant matter," and I feel no imprisonment or loss of "greater peace" whatsoever.

🙂

Acting on matters of principle is not "below" me, CM; in fact, it's about as on level with me as anything I can cite.

Since I have not communicated with you about this matter since my November 23 PM, and until your recent post, had no intention of communicating with you about it except as explained in that message, I won't be "continu(ing) [my] bemoaning in a PM"... but thanks for the permission.

I agree and intend to do both.

Again, if either of us has "sour(ed) these forums with personal 'stuff'" it's you, CM, not I. With your recent post, you returned the matter to the threads; I merely responded to your post. As I believe I made clear in my PMs, in this matter there is one and only one way to "start the new year with a 'clean slate.'" You've made your choice in the matter clear, a choice I accept without animus or disrespect. I hope you will similarly accept my choice.

Wolfgang,

Who can understand God, except He reveals Himself? CM