The Case Against the Trinity

[Ronald David Bruno]

You have yet to explain how justice is exacted by the victim paying the price for the culprit.

Pardon me for the delay, my phone and internet have been down for two days - I'm in Texas.

Sin needs to be judged, it is a Biblical principle. From the beginning, God's plan was to send a Savior, who would sacrifice himself for our sins.
"The wages of sin is death ..." Rom. 6:23 That is the judgment, physical and spiritual death.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11
So animals were sacrificed, but this did not remove sin, just covered them, temporarily, He passed over them, but it was an imperfect practice. The Law could not be fulfilled. The Law was a shadow and animal sacrifices were symbolically pointing to a coming sacrifice, once and for all, Jesus.
It is impossible to remove sins by the blood of bulls and goats. (Hebrews 10:4)
But, "For by one offering, He has perfected forever, those who are being sanctified." Heb. 10:15
How? "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His Being ..." HEB. 1:3
You cannot be the radiance and exact representation of God unless you are God. God emptied Himself and became a man.
Christ, "whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God has passesd over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" Rom. 3:25, 26
There is your justice, a sacrifice, "The just for the unjust". (1Pet.3:18)

Don't speak in mystical nonsense terms, where you argument comes from trying to explain the elementary principles of what love is, or how egregious sin is.

Love is not at all elementary. In fact most people strive and yearn their entire lives trying to figure it out, to be fulfulled in that love.
God is love and the greatest act of love is that He gave His life for all.
" In this is LOVE, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10
"He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

 

[justbyfaith]

Well, just because we have to follow POTUS, does not mean we do not have to follow the orders of mayors or governors. For theological reasons, you want to pretend there is only one Lord when there are, in fact, many lords. Yet, there is only one LORD God.

The Scriptures you referenced were NOT asserting a lord = LORD, although I agree that is the trinitarian interpretation; the scripture points out for Christians, there is one direct lord, which is Jesus and I agree.

So, who is Jesus by your estimation? is He the Lord? or is He a lord?

I await your answer.

This has been addressed several times already. Jesus is the son of God - but not God.

Jesus is the Son of God, in that He is come in the flesh.

The Spirit that dwells in Jesus, and Jesus in Him, is the Father (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11).

 

[Base12]

The Word is the word of God - but not literally God.

The following verse teaches that the Word *WAS* literally God (and still is). God does not change...

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Your post contradicts.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do these statements of Colwell prove that “a god” is a mistranslation at John 1:1? Perhaps you noticed this scholar’s wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite “if the context suggests” that. Further along in his argument Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position “only when the context demands it.” Nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.

and Colwell has been shot down by nearly all other Scholars. and you forget that following standard rules of translation God does not precede the verb but must follow the verb. If in translation it preceded the verb, colwell would have available possibility, but it doesn't and he doesn't as legions of Greek scholars have written on this and why He and others were wrong!

And anarthrous appear specifically without an article, and only demand an indefinite article in English when the English demands it! and it far from demands it here! Sorry but the Watchtower has led you astray if this is where you got that argument.

If you wish, I can link you to many articles from expert Greek Scholars (some not even believers) who declare that John 1:1 says whoever God is, the Word is! and they are separate

At John 1:1 Marshall’s interlinear translation of it reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with — God, and God was the Word.” As noted above, no “the” appears before “God” in the final clause of this verse. The New World Bible Translation Committee chose to insert the indefinite article “a” there. This helps to distinguish “the Word,” Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was “with,” Jehovah, the Almighty. Some persons familiar with Greek claim that in doing so the translators violated an important rule of Greek grammar. Why so?

This is an actual place for place translation, but that is not how it has to be formed in English

Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: “The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement. . . . We have inserted ‘a’ or ‘an’ as a matter of course where it seems called for.” Of course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an “a” before “god” at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was “individual judgement,” which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgment in this place by the translation “a god.”

You need to realize MArshall also employed a "dynamic equivalent" form of translating. Like teh New World Paraphrase it includes in the translating- his opinion.

Explanation of John 1:1

Here is one of many authors and experts that explain why the watchtower is wrong about Jon 1:1

.

 

[justbyfaith]

If you wish, I can link you to many articles from expert Greek Scholars (some not even believers) who declare that John 1:1 says whoever God is, the Word is! and they are separate

They are distinct not separate.

If they are separate than that is three Gods; and you have Tritheism as your theology.

Even the Trinitarian creeds identify Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct rather than separate.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, it should be obvious that we are all born as sinners and therefore would qualify as tares until God turns us into wheat; new creatures in Christ wherein the old has passed away and all things have become new.

I do believe that this means that before we came to Christ, our hearts were deceitfful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9); but that now that God has given us a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 36:25-27), our hearts have become honest and good (Luke 8:15).

There is a paradox here that is beyond. human figuring!

We were predestined, foreknown and elect before the foundation of the world. Yet until God led us to Jesus we were lost and depraved! We were both holy and unholy at the same time! We were saved because it was a foregone conclusion, and yet had to get saved intime! We were weed and wheat, goat and sheep because God declared us to be HIs sheep.

We were known by god before the foundation of the world as belonging to HIm! Once again Jesus doesn't go after the lost goats, but the lost sheep! Have fun trying to wrap ytour human brain around that. I have pondered that for decdes and still no closer to getting my puny brain to understand the majestic mystery of it all!

 

[justbyfaith]

There is a paradox here that is beyond. human figuring!

We were predestined, foreknown and elect before the foundation of the world. Yet until God led us to Jesus we were lost and depraved! We were both holy and unholy at the same time! We were saved because it was a foregone conclusion, and yet had to get saved intime! We were weed and wheat, goat and sheep because God declared us to be HIs sheep.

We were known by god before the foundation of the world as belonging to HIm! Once again Jesus doesn't go after the lost goats, but the lost sheep! Have fun trying to wrap ytour human brain around that. I have pondered that for decdes and still no closer to getting my puny brain to understand the majestic mystery of it all!

From the perspective of eternity God knows who will receive Him and sees them as sheep from the moment of their conversion as concerning time. From eternity's perspective they are redeemed; but time cannot be excluded from the equation because all who are redeemed were once unsaved.

Once again Jesus doesn't go after the lost goats, but the lost sheep!

Your idea seems closer to Calvinistic philosophy than what I would want to believe in.

Everyone, before they get born again, is as a goat. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord (Romans 3:23).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Of course I reject the whole Calvinist thing....
Whether it be the elect before the foundation of the world which mean no good you do is of your accord.
Or damned before the foundations of the world where you are punished for something that God has taken ownership for.
Simply foolishness. The Great Puppet Master.

Well He is no matter how much you and I believe or disbelieve it.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

All our works that survive the Bema judgment are the works that we did in His power and his ability to work in and through us! And those works as Paul said were predestined for us to walk in:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

So you are free to think that an unsaved man who is dead in their trespasses and sins and incapable of perceiving the things of God because he is spiritually dead and lives in the flesh which cannot please God, has a will that can understand and choose God

But the bible doesn't. And it is not a Calvinist thing but a biblical thing that Calvin brought to light after being buried in darkness for over a millenia!

 

[justbyfaith]

So you are free to think that an unsaved man who is dead in their trespasses and sins and incapable of perceiving the things of God because he is spiritually dead and lives in the flesh which cannot please God, has a will that can understand and choose God

But the bible doesn't. And it is not a Calvinist thing but a biblical thing that Calvin brought to light after being buried in darkness for over a millenia!

It is indeed a Calvinist thing.

An unsaved man can be enabled to believe in Jesus Christ through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit.

He does not get born again until after he repents and gives his heart to Christ.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

They are distinct not separate.

If they are separate than that is three Gods; and you have Tritheism as your theology.

Even the Trinitarian creeds identify Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct rather than separate.

Which is a semantical argument. Separate in the sense they are three separate "entities", they use distinct because they emphasize the unmistakebleness of their separate"personages".

From the perspective of eternity God knows who will receive Him and sees them as sheep from the moment of their conversion as concerning time. From eternity's perspective they are redeemed; but time cannot be excluded from the equation because all who are redeemed were once unsaved.

As I said, it is a paradox. God is outside of time and we are in time.

Your idea seems closer to Calvinistic philosophy than what I would want to believe in.

Everyone, before they get born again, is as a goat. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord (Romans 3:23).

Well it is the Biblical philosophy that Calvin espoused! Romans 9:

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

It is God who calls us to HImself and it is God who chooses us- not we HIm. If God did not work in us to recieve Jesus, we would never accept Christ in and of ourselves!

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It is indeed a Calvinist thing.

An unsaved man can be enabled to believe in Jesus Christ through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit.

He does not get born again until after he repents and gives his heart to Christ.

If he is in his human nature (the flesh which cannot please god) How can he choose Jesus? This is definitely something that pleases God that teh flesh cannot and will not do.

 

[friend of]

The following verse teaches that the Word *WAS* literally God (and still is). God does not change...

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Your post contradicts.

It really doesn't get more obvious than this.

 

[Renniks]

I like magic, superpowers, etc. However, not even God can violate logic. For instance, He cannot be all-knowing and get lost. He cannot be all powerful and actually suffer & die as Jesus did.

Of course God can violate logic. He created the systems from which logic stem. He can create exceptions. If that is your argument, it's not very convincing.

 

[justbyfaith]

If he is in his human nature (the flesh which cannot please god) How can he choose Jesus? This is definitely something that pleases God that teh flesh cannot and will not do.

Because the Holy Spirit enables him to do so.

I am contending for the fact that we are born again as the result of repenting and believing in and receiving Christ.

This should go without saying; but somewhere along the line a false doctrine came in that disputes this doctrine of absolute truth.

 

[justbyfaith]

Which is a semantical argument. Separate in the sense they are three separate "entities", they use distinct because they emphasize the unmistakebleness of their separate"personages".

Not only a semantical argument; but there is definite meaning to the difference between the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct and the idea that they are separate.

I would suggest that you take a look at my thread on the Trinity.

True Trinity. (specifically posts #1-#6).

 

[101G]

Not only a semantical argument; but there is definite meaning to the difference between the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct and the idea that they are separate.

I would suggest that you take a look at my thread on the Trinity.

True Trinity. (specifically posts #1-#6).

if true, why then did the Holy Ghost have blood, Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.".

and also, why was the Father pierced? Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[justbyfaith]

if true, why then did the Holy Ghost have blood, Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.".

and also, why was the Father pierced? Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Maybe you should ask the Lord what are the answers to these questions;

For they do not present an obstacle to faith as concerning the things that I believe in.

 

[101G]

Maybe you should ask the Lord what are the answers to these questions;

For they do not present an obstacle to faith as concerning the things that I believe in.

so we can take this as you cannot answer? also, I have alreay asked the Lord and he has answered me on this. but you said, "but there is definite meaning to the difference between the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct and the idea that they are separate"

well I'm in support of the fact. did not the Son was pierced as the Father was as Zechariah 12:10 states? and did not the Son have Blood as the Holy Spirit did according to Acts 20:28. so where is any "distinction?"

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[justbyfaith]

so we can take this as you cannot answer? also, I have alreay asked the Lord and he has answered me on this. but you said, "but there is definite meaning to the difference between the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct and the idea that they are separate"

well I'm in support of the fact. did not the Son was pierced as the Father was as Zechariah 12:10 states? and did not the Son have Blood as the Holy Spirit did according to Acts 20:28. so where is any "distinction?"

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

The Father is an eternal Spirit inhabiting eternity; how can He be pierced except inasmuch as He has taken on an added nature of human flesh?

 

[101G]

The Father is an eternal Spirit inhabiting eternity; how can He be pierced except inasmuch as He has taken on an added nature of human flesh?

is it not the same Spirit in that flesh that was pierced, is is not? see Phil 2:6..... YIKES!



PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"