Examining Anti-Trinitarian Verses

[Wrangler]

In the plethora of threads and posts on the topic, a recent revelation came to me. Trinitarians do not identify a rejection criteria for their doctrine. Their logic is, their doctrine is accepted by default and no evidence can dislodge that dogmatic claim, i.e., there is no such thing, to their way of thinking, as an anti-trinitarian verse in Scripture.

Of course, unorthodox Christians do have a rejection criteria for the trinity. Interestedly, folks like @GEN2REV reject the trinity while holding that Jesus is God. But this thread is about those verses that are generally anti-trinitarian. From today's devotional reading:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NRSV)

This anti-trinitarian verse almost passes as a trinitarian verse. It references 3 Beings but only 2 that make up the trinity. So, close! The 3 Beings listed are not the 3 Beings of the trinity. 'The Father' is missing from this litany. An inquiring mind would ask why.

Of course, we have all seen posts of our indoctrinated brothers and sisters insert "the Father" in verses that explicitly state "God" - meaning the entirety of the Supreme Being in his unitarian nature. I suspect this verse would illicit that same unconscious response. Of course, we know that "the Son of God" is synonymous with Jesus and "the Father" is synonymous with God - in his unitarian nature. We know this from many other explicit verses.

So, while trinitarians are adept at replacing 'the word' with Jesus, they cannot bring themselves to replace 'the Father' with God as 2 COR 13:14 clearly does. (Replace God with 'the Father,' they can do all day long; replace 'the Father' with God, they know would undermine their doctrine so cease, their logic stops) What are your thoughts about this? And what other anti-trinitarian verses do you want to present and analyze?

 

[Matthias]

I like the approach but, in and of itself, it will produce no change of mind. Elemental trinitarianism is the play you’re up against.

 

[Wrangler]

Hey, I noticed the icon change. Please share the significance?

I agree Elemental trinitarianism would be the play I'm up against IF my audience was trinitarians. But my target audience is unorthodox Christians, as iron sharpens iron.

 

[Matthias]

Hey, I noticed the icon change. Please share the significance?

The icon change is in response to voices of complaint on the board. One of the items being discussed is a suggestion on how to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox Christians; the profile (or registration) title “Christian” being perhaps too generic, given the current climate of forum moderating.

I’m a Christian whose strict unitary monotheism is Jewish.

There are various ways and means of making a point or points. I also considered making an icon containing the words “Unclean! Unclean!” to amuse them with but decided to take a more serious tack. In doing so I’m making a dual point, which will probably be lost on many them.

I agree Elemental trinitarianism would be the play I'm up against IF my audience was trinitarians. But my target audience is unorthodox Christians, as iron sharpens iron.

Some among those who consider themselves orthodox but aren’t will likely be along shortly.

 

[RLT63]

In the plethora of threads and posts on the topic, a recent revelation came to me. Trinitarians do not identify a rejection criteria for their doctrine. Their logic is, their doctrine is accepted by default and no evidence can dislodge that dogmatic claim, i.e., there is no such thing, to their way of thinking, as an anti-trinitarian verse in Scripture.

Of course, unorthodox Christians do have a rejection criteria for the trinity. Interestedly, folks like @GEN2REV reject the trinity while holding that Jesus is God. But this thread is about those verses that are generally anti-trinitarian. From today's devotional reading:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NRSV)

This anti-trinitarian verse almost passes as a trinitarian verse. It references 3 Beings but only 2 that make up the trinity. So, close! The 3 Beings listed are not the 3 Beings of the trinity. 'The Father' is missing from this litany. An inquiring mind would ask why.

Of course, we have all seen posts of our indoctrinated brothers and sisters insert "the Father" in verses that explicitly state "God" - meaning the entirety of the Supreme Being in his unitarian nature. I suspect this verse would illicit that same unconscious response. Of course, we know that "the Son of God" is synonymous with Jesus and "the Father" is synonymous with God - in his unitarian nature. We know this from many other explicit verses.

So, while trinitarians are adept at replacing 'the word' with Jesus, they cannot bring themselves to replace 'the Father' with God as 2 COR 13:13 clearly does. (Replace God with 'the Father,' they can do all day long; replace 'the Father' with God, they know would undermine their doctrine so cease, their logic stops) What are your thoughts about this? And what other anti-trinitarian verses do you want to present and analyze?

It sounds like you contradicted yourself. If God refers to the Father then you have the Trinity in the verse.

 

[RLT63]

The icon change is in response to voices of complaint on the board. One of the items being discussed is a suggestion on how to distinguish between orthodox and heterodox Christians; the profile (or registration) title “Christian” being perhaps too generic, given the current climate of forum moderating.

I’m a Christian whose strict unitary monotheism is Jewish.

There are various ways and means of making a point or points. I also considered making an icon containing the words “Unclean! Unclean!” to amuse them with but decided to take a more serious tack. In doing so I’m making a dual point, which will probably be lost on many them.



Some among those who consider themselves orthodox but aren’t will likely be along shortly.

What was wrong with your avatar? I thought it depicted someone saving a drowning man.

 

[Wrangler]

It sounds like you contradicted yourself. If God refers to the Father then you have the Trinity in the verse.

The contradiction it reveals is the trinity contradiction via Language Usage. Suppose you believe Moe is part of the 3 Stooges. The fact that there is a sentence referencing the 3 Stooges AND Moe (as opposed to Moe OF the 3 Stooges) would indicate he is a separate Being from the 3 Stooges.

The point you want to miss is similar. By using the word God, you must confess that neither Jesus or the HS are subsets since they are additive.

And of course, the other point you want to miss is that God is the father alone. You write ‘If God refers to the Father’ AS IF God refers explicitly to anyone else in Scripture OR in this particular verse.

 

[Matthias]

What was wrong with your avatar?

There isn’t anything wrong with it.

I thought it depicted someone saving a drowning man.

Dirk Willems - Wikipedia

 

[Wrangler]

There isn’t anything wrong with it.



Dirk Willems - Wikipedia

The saddest martyrs are those martyred by their Christian brothers.

 

[Peterlag]

In the plethora of threads and posts on the topic, a recent revelation came to me. Trinitarians do not identify a rejection criteria for their doctrine. Their logic is, their doctrine is accepted by default and no evidence can dislodge that dogmatic claim, i.e., there is no such thing, to their way of thinking, as an anti-trinitarian verse in Scripture.

Of course, unorthodox Christians do have a rejection criteria for the trinity. Interestedly, folks like @GEN2REV reject the trinity while holding that Jesus is God. But this thread is about those verses that are generally anti-trinitarian. From today's devotional reading:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NRSV)

This anti-trinitarian verse almost passes as a trinitarian verse. It references 3 Beings but only 2 that make up the trinity. So, close! The 3 Beings listed are not the 3 Beings of the trinity. 'The Father' is missing from this litany. An inquiring mind would ask why.

Of course, we have all seen posts of our indoctrinated brothers and sisters insert "the Father" in verses that explicitly state "God" - meaning the entirety of the Supreme Being in his unitarian nature. I suspect this verse would illicit that same unconscious response. Of course, we know that "the Son of God" is synonymous with Jesus and "the Father" is synonymous with God - in his unitarian nature. We know this from many other explicit verses.

So, while trinitarians are adept at replacing 'the word' with Jesus, they cannot bring themselves to replace 'the Father' with God as 2 COR 13:13 clearly does. (Replace God with 'the Father,' they can do all day long; replace 'the Father' with God, they know would undermine their doctrine so cease, their logic stops) What are your thoughts about this? And what other anti-trinitarian verses do you want to present and analyze?

Can we edit this so we are quoting 2 Corinthians 13:14?

 

[WalterandDebbie]

In the plethora of threads and posts on the topic, a recent revelation came to me. Trinitarians do not identify a rejection criteria for their doctrine. Their logic is, their doctrine is accepted by default and no evidence can dislodge that dogmatic claim, i.e., there is no such thing, to their way of thinking, as an anti-trinitarian verse in Scripture.

Of course, unorthodox Christians do have a rejection criteria for the trinity. Interestedly, folks like @GEN2REV reject the trinity while holding that Jesus is God. But this thread is about those verses that are generally anti-trinitarian. From today's devotional reading:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NRSV)

This anti-trinitarian verse almost passes as a trinitarian verse. It references 3 Beings but only 2 that make up the trinity. So, close! The 3 Beings listed are not the 3 Beings of the trinity. 'The Father' is missing from this litany. An inquiring mind would ask why.

Of course, we have all seen posts of our indoctrinated brothers and sisters insert "the Father" in verses that explicitly state "God" - meaning the entirety of the Supreme Being in his unitarian nature. I suspect this verse would illicit that same unconscious response. Of course, we know that "the Son of God" is synonymous with Jesus and "the Father" is synonymous with God - in his unitarian nature. We know this from many other explicit verses.

So, while trinitarians are adept at replacing 'the word' with Jesus, they cannot bring themselves to replace 'the Father' with God as 2 COR 13:13 clearly does. (Replace God with 'the Father,' they can do all day long; replace 'the Father' with God, they know would undermine their doctrine so cease, their logic stops) What are your thoughts about this? And what other anti-trinitarian verses do you want to present and analyze?

Hello Wrangler, Looking over The Forum Rules, it seems to me you haven't quite a bit.

Walter

 

[Wrangler]

Can we edit this so we are quoting 2 Corinthians 13:14?

Well, I hoped other verses would be added as the conversation unfolds. What about v14 exemplifies this?

 

[Peterlag]

Well, I hoped other verses would be added as the conversation unfolds. What about v14 exemplifies this?

You are quoting this verse as 2 Corinthians 13:13

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NRSV)

This is...

2 Corinthians 13:13
All the saints salute you.

 

[Wrangler]

I misunderstood. It seems I typed 3 rather than 4. I’ll fix the OP.

 

[Peterlag]

I misunderstood. It seems I typed 3 rather than 4. I’ll fix the OP.

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Three different things are mentioned, but they are never said to be one or of one substance or making up one God. There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them "one" just because they are mentioned together. Peter, James, and John are often mentioned together, but that does not make them one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are often mentioned together, and that does not make them one. If three things are actually "one" then there must be a clear verse that says so and there is no such verse that articulates that God, Jesus, and the spirit equal one God. The Holy Spirit in this verse should be accurately translated as holy spirit. The fact that the verse mentions God separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that both Jesus and the spirit are indeed separate from God.

The spirit here is holy spirit because the words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Hebrew and Aramaic do not have upper-case and lower-case letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.
Greek does have upper and lower-case letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only upper-case letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lower-case letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or “holy spirit” or “Spirit” or “spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

 

[Wrangler]

The fact that the verse mentions God separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that both Jesus and the spirit are indeed separate from God.

In fact, such verses would never be written IF the authors embraced trinitiarianism.

Here is another 1 COR 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

IF it is significant that there is a verse that mentions all 3 members of the trinity, it must also be important when verses do NOT mention all 3 members.

Also, this is another powerful juxtaposition verse showing agency. God - in his unitarian nature - achieves something through his agent, our Lord Jesus Christ. Evidently, this goal of God's does not require the assistant of that 3rd person - or the Father, for that matter.

 

[marks]

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NRSV)

What about this verse denies the Trinity?

I'm not seeing it.

It seems your objection is nothing more than "3 cannot be 1". Was there something else? Or only your intellectual incredulity?

It sounds like you contradicted yourself. If God refers to the Father then you have the Trinity in the verse.

I don't see anything in that verse that rejects or denies the Trinity. Do you?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

What about this verse denies the Trinity?

I guess you did not read - and understand - the OP. What specifically in the OP do you not understand?

 

[marks]

Here is another 1 COR 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

IF it is significant that there is a verse that mentions all 3 members of the trinity, it must also be important when verses do NOT mention all 3 members.

What exactly in this passage denies or refutes the Trinity? Your's is an argument from silence. Which means its not valid. You make your rule, and the verse doesn't fit your rule, but what's the big surprise? That's why you made your rule.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I guess you did not read - and understand - the OP. What specifically in the OP do you not understand?

No, but I did read it. Can you answer my question?

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NRSV)

Tell me, please! What statement regarding the Trinity - for or against - is made in the verse?

I don't see one. You claim to.

It references 3 Beings but only 2 that make up the trinity. So, close! The 3 Beings listed are not the 3 Beings of the trinity. 'The Father' is missing from this litany. An inquiring mind would ask why.

You say, it would have been written differently if the Trinity were real.

I say, the Trinity IS real, and this is how God chose to speak.

You've shared your thoughts, I've shared my thoughts, and where in all of this is a specific statement regarding the Trinity? That is, from God? For, or against?

This verse doesn't make a statement one way or the other, only, you seem to think God should have said something different if He is Triune.

Well, I don't see the need for Him to speak differently, only if you are trying to make the passage actually about the Trinity. I'm fine with just sticking to what the passage is actually talking about.

Much love!