Subject: Revelation 1:1 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: November 03 2007
Debaters: t8 & Is 1: 18
t8
Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.
He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
OK. Let’s look at who was involved in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
God > Jesus the Christ > his angel > John > who then wrote this down for the churches.
So I count 4 identities or beings from God to John.
Clearly God is not Jesus Christ. God can only be the Father, and God is identified later on in Revelation, as the Father.
Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Now Isaiah believes that Jesus Christ is God, therefore he really sees 3 beings involved by reason of the doctrine that he holds to.
God (one being, who comprises of 3) > his angel, > John.
Now the Book of Revelation is an interesting book, because of all the books in the bible, I think it is the only one to contain this warning:
Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Now let us see how Isaiah decides to try and disprove that God and Jesus Christ are different identities or beings. Let us watch him add or take away from the words in Revelation 1:1 in order to try and make his Trinity doctrine credible.
Of course I hope that rather than add or take way from the text or what John 1:1 is saying, that he is wise enough to leave that verse and any other verses in Revelation as they were meant to be written and understood.
It’s up to him.
So I count 4 identities or beings from God to John.
Is 1: 18
The argument being extended here is the exact same one used by t8 in his second proof text; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. In that post t8 intimated that because the Father was designated “God” and Jesus was not that was substantive evidence against the proposition that Yeshua is YHWH. To this I replied:
| Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 17 2007,21:04) |
| 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.So again we have a proof text that has been purported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:- In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this: YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God. Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let’s remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t. So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more. |
The same counter-argument can be tendered in response to this proof text. The fact is there is no explicit or implicit grammatical evidence of a contrast being drawn between the Father’s or Son’s respective “beings” in the Revelation 1:1 text. And it is this very information that t8 must produce in order to show a disparity in their respective ontologies. Revelation 1:1 does not strike at the foundation of what trinitarians affirm in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Once more t8 has missed the mark.
Blessings
