- This topic is empty.
- Posts
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=3889
In this thread, we are looking for the opposite of what WJ suggested in the link above. I'll make my explanation clear.
We are looking for trinitarian “proofs” or arguments that should never ever be considered proofs because they are the weakest and most ridiculous “proofs.”
(As with the counterpart, this isn't for debate. It is for creating a list. Not debating. List. Not debating. List. And, so, it seems that only those who aren't trinitarians should be posting here. So again, there shouldn't be a debate. It's just a list that we are creating of the weakest and perhaps least reasonable proofs for the trinity)
I will start by giving an example:
The Johannine comma
1 John 5:7-8
This verse should never ever ever ever ever ever ever be used by any sane person to try to argue the trinity. It is absurd. Yet, it happens.
(There. I think we all know what we are going for here. I didn't explain the reasoning behind why it is absurd, because it is so abundantly clearly absurd, I felt no need.) [Remember, this ISN'T A DEBATE.] Let the list begin.
John 10:30.
I get very very angry when people try to convince other people that this proves Jesus is God. It hurts my head and makes me angry.
David
there is also Rom 9;5
in the NIV 1984;Ro 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! AmentheRo 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen NKJV,
RO 9:5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. AmenNASV
Ro 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and as far as His natural descent was concerned, from them is the Christ, Who is exalted and supreme over all, God, blessed forever! AmenTHE AMPLIFIED BIBLE
it does never make sence that Paul would call Christ God,it would and is ridicule.
Pierre
All
I never found a verse in the bible that shows that the HOLY SPIRIT is a god ,is there one verse??
Pierre
No Pierre, there isn't one. But this thread is more about “trinitarian proofs” that are so weak they should never be mentioned, and not about lack of trinitarian evidence for a certain thing.
How about the most popular one – John 1:1?
John 1:1 NET ©
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.From the 25 Trinitarian scholars who put NETNotes together:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.
The above makes clear that the Greek could be rendered as “the Word was THE God”, or “the Word was god (qualitatively)”, or “the Word was a god”. All are GRAMMATICALLY acceptable and faithful translations of the Greek language that John used. The NETNotes scholars go on to say:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”);
In the above, these Trinitarian scholars admit what any rational thinking person could easily decipher on their own: The Word was NOT the “person of God”, but someone else who was WITH God. (I thought the Trinitarians thought of “God” as THREE persons – why say “THE person of God”?
) But anyway, here's where they go off of the deep end, being lead, not by anything scriptural, but by their own biases:
Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence. However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God.
Can you see what just started to happen? Their BIAS is telling them that since “divine” isn't a word used exclusively of God Almighty, and “God Almighty” is exactly who they want Jesus to BE, they have opted not to use “divine” in their translation. They continue:
The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons.
Now these people who have readily admitted that John 1:1 speaks of TWO – one called “the Word” who was WITH One called “THE God” – are letting their biases equalize the “essence” of the two who are mentioned, with no scriptural reason whatsoever to do so. (It is noteworthy that they maintain their claim of inequality between the Father and the Son, for I thought the Trinity Doctrine taught of three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one Godhead.
)So, will they end up using their biased “what God was the Word was” rendering in their translation? Let's see:
However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos is one in essence with God the Father.
Nope! They instead did a poll, and it turned out that even with their biased “what God was the Word was” translation, not enough average readers were putting the pieces together that Jesus IS God Almighty Himself! So they had no choice but to do what any faithful and honest translator of scriptures would do – pick the word “truly” out of thin air, and add it into the sacred scriptures in an effort to drive home their own bias that Jesus IS God!
Does everyone see how this all transpired?
1. These Trinitarian scholars started with a scripture that they readily admit speaks of TWO – one who was WITH the other.2. Then they pull out of thin air the assumption that this one who was WITH God must somehow be everything in essence that God is – with no scriptural support for this reasoning, but only their biased imagination.
3. Then they go against the rules of Moses and John, who both forbade adding into scripture what is not there, by adding the word “truly” to drive their own “truth” home.
4. And finally, they end up with a translation (as shown way above) that illogically conveys the very thing they've admitted can't be the case because of the word with in 1:1b — that the TWO mentioned are in fact the same person. Although they admit that the Word cannot be “the person of God” and they admit that John was not equating the Father and the Son, they've managed to come up with a translation that will inevitably lead the average reader to the very conclusion they know to be false.
But since these experts clearly admit that the word with in 1:1b prohibits the Word from being “the person of God”, it becomes clear to all of us that TWO are mentioned in this scripture – one who was WITH the other. In other words, John 1:1 clearly speaks of TWO who are called by the title “god”. And since only ONE of them is called by the title “THE god”, it clearly means the other is “A god” who was with “THE god” in the beginning.
As attested to by the Greek expert Jason BeDuhn in his book Truth in Translation, the NWT has this scripture rendered correctly:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
On a side note, I recently posted a quote in the “Freak Greek” thread from a Greek fellow who said that among those who speak Greek, John 1:1 isn't even considered a Trinitarian proof text because all Greek speaking people, (Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike), clearly understand John 1:1 to be speaking of the Word as A god who was with THE God in the beginning.
peace,
mikeQuote (david @ June 13 2011,00:07) No Pierre, there isn't one. But this thread is more about “trinitarian proofs” that are so weak they should never be mentioned, and not about lack of trinitarian evidence for a certain thing.
Davidare you not trying to split hairs in two ?
Pierre
Hi All,
Since David has “officially abandoned” us, I suggest we continue on without him.
In his first post he said: We are looking for trinitarian “proofs” or arguments that should never ever be considered proofs because they are the weakest and most ridiculous “proofs.”
I find it illogical to just “list” a scripture without saying WHY it shouldn't be used as a Trinitarian proof text. Just listing “the Johannine comma” or “John 10:30” does absolutely NOTHING towards showing anyone WHY they shouldn't ever be used by the Trinitarians as proof texts.
For example:
The Johannine comma in 1 John 5 is an instance where a later scribe added words to the scripture. The original says:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.Later mss have these added words:
7 For there are three that testify in heaven: 8 the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.But these additional words are not found in any Greek mss before the fourteenth century, and are therefore clearly a scribe's biased attempt at creating a Trinitarian “proof text” where there is none.
I have not heard any Trinitarian on Heaven Net ever claim these added words as a proof text, and was not aware that any Trinitarian still did this in light of the evidence that the words were later added.
(See David? NOW we know WHY the Johannine comma can not be used as a valid proof text.)
mike
John 10:30 NIV
30 I and the Father are one.This is clearly not a proof that Jesus is God Almighty unless you consider John 17:20…………
that they may be one as we are one—
…………..to be saying that many others will also be God Almighty.(And once again, now we all know WHY John 10:30 is not a Trinitarian proof text.)
All
the fact that some believe in the trinity it is because they have been indoctrinated in that view ,and so it is difficult to see anything differently
or they believe because of personal benefits
Pierre
John 10:18
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”Some claim 10:18 as a claim by Jesus himself that he is God Almighty. But the fact that this is a COMMAND from his Father destroys any chance of this being taken seriously as a Trinitarian proof text.
Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Trinitarians like to claim that if Jesus has all power and authority, he must be God Almighty. But they conveniently ignore the words “GIVEN TO ME”. These words clearly imply that someone with even greater power and authority has GIVEN Jesus whatever power and authority he now has.
Quote (terraricca @ June 13 2011,05:56) Quote (david @ June 13 2011,00:07) No Pierre, there isn't one. But this thread is more about “trinitarian proofs” that are so weak they should never be mentioned, and not about lack of trinitarian evidence for a certain thing.
Davidare you not trying to split hairs in two ?
Pierre
I don't think so Pierre. There are already 378 threads on the trinity. There are probably several of them that deal specifically with the holy spirit.In this thread, we are not trying to disprove the trinity, or even to point to things that seem to make the trinity obviously false to us.
We are trying to show things that THEY (or some of them) use as proof of the trinity that are very very silly.
The fact that the holy spirit isn't called “god” in the Bible, while this does seem obvious to us that it is proof against the holy spirit being “God,” it isn't something THEY ever use as any sort of proof.
This thread was meant to be different, and not just like one of the other 400 trinity threads where we say whatever we want. Oh well. Pretty much all threads break down after some time and turn into this anyway. Have it at willy nilly.
Quote I find it illogical to just “list” a scripture without saying WHY it shouldn't be used as a Trinitarian proof text. Just listing “the Johannine comma” or “John 10:30” does absolutely NOTHING towards showing anyone WHY they shouldn't ever be used by the Trinitarians as proof texts. The point of this thread wasn't so much debate as it is to create a list of the weakest, silliest, most illogical trinitarian proofs, “proofs” that have no business being categorized as proofs. That being the case, I don't feel a lot of explanation is necessary, but yes, I should have said something about those. I was actually lacking time and just wanting to get the thread started.
Quote (david @ June 13 2011,19:33) Quote (terraricca @ June 13 2011,05:56) Quote (david @ June 13 2011,00:07) No Pierre, there isn't one. But this thread is more about “trinitarian proofs” that are so weak they should never be mentioned, and not about lack of trinitarian evidence for a certain thing.
Davidare you not trying to split hairs in two ?
Pierre
I don't think so Pierre. There are already 378 threads on the trinity. There are probably several of them that deal specifically with the holy spirit.In this thread, we are not trying to disprove the trinity, or even to point to things that seem to make the trinity obviously false to us.
We are trying to show things that THEY (or some of them) use as proof of the trinity that are very very silly.
The fact that the holy spirit isn't called “god” in the Bible, while this does seem obvious to us that it is proof against the holy spirit being “God,” it isn't something THEY ever use as any sort of proof.
This thread was meant to be different, and not just like one of the other 400 trinity threads where we say whatever we want. Oh well. Pretty much all threads break down after some time and turn into this anyway. Have it at willy nilly.
Davidi agree on this with you ,but all of the quotes are already there in the 20000 comments given and many are a repetition of it all ,
yeah what can i say ?
Pierre
1 John 5:20
18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. 19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.Trinitarians love this verse as it supposedly proves that Jesus is the true God.
But, the one who is true in this verse also has a son called Jesus Christ. If I asked any believer to name the person who has a son called Jesus Christ, the answer would unanimously be a title of some kind that identifies the Father, such as the Father or God. Yet for some strange reason, Trinitarians do not answer this way when it comes to this verse. Their answer is Jesus Christ which unfortunately for them means that Jesus Christ has a son called Jesus Christ.
Also John 20:17 is a similar verse and it is clear that the Father is the true God.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Titus 2:13 NWT
while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,The above represents one way this scripture can be faithfully translated, and as such doesn't say anything about Jesus being God Almighty.
Titus 2:13 NIV
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,The NIV version represents another way this same scripture can also be faithfully translated, but does it say that Jesus is God Almighty in this rendering? Of course not, for we already know that God foretold through Isaiah in 9:6 that His messiah would be called “mighty god”, we already know that Jesus is the god who was with THE God in John 1:1, and we already know that Jesus is the only begotten god mentioned in John 1:18.
Satan is also called a god by Paul, but no one takes that to mean he is God Almighty. Why would referring to Jesus as a god mean he was God Almighty?
So even translated the way the Trinitarians prefer, Titus 2:13 does nothing more than fulfill God's prophecy from Isaiah 9:6, and says absolutely nothing about Jesus being God Almighty Himself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
