Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[Free]

Your missing my point. If there are elements that date to the 3rd or 4th century in the writings, then it was written after Clement. In other words, there is some kind of forgery going on with that teaching. That teaching is clearly dated to the 3rd century.

I have not missed your point. I have already addressed this on the previous page:

"if something in the writing dates from the 3rd century, then it could easily have been a later addition to an earlier text. That is what you have argued against the Bible and Matt 28:19 and the KJV of 1 John 5:7. So why couldn't that also apply here? You can't use that argument against the Trinity and ignore that it could also very well apply here."

I will try and make it clearer. From your other site, you state:

1 John 3:16 In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us:...

The words (of God) are not in the original text of 1 John 3:16, but have been added.

1 John 5:7 implicitly states that all THREE are ONE.

This is the only verse in the Bible that explicitly states that all three persons are one.
Unfortunately, it was added to that verse.
No earlier version includes that last phrase about them being one.

Clearly, you are arguing that there have been later additions to Scripture. Something I don't necessarily disagree with. With the Didache, you are arguing that because it contains "elements that date to the 3rd or 4th century in the writings, then it was written after Clement." However, it is quite plausible that the Didache had later additions to it, just as you argue above against certain passages in Scripture.

The dilemma is this: My position is that it is possible the Didache was written in the 1st or 2nd century, quoted by Clement in 180-190 AD, and then had later additions in the 3rd or 4th century. This is entirely plausible and consistent.

Your position is that it is impossible for the Didache to have been written in the 1st or 2nd century because it has elements that date to the 3rd or 4th century. Therefore, it is impossible that Clement quoted from it. However, this ignores the question which westtexas asks: "How can Clement quote from a writing which you say is not in existence yet?" You are saying something is impossible which has actually happened. Therefore it is your position that is on shaky ground and you have to explain how the impossible has happened, whereas my position provides sufficient explanation.

Free earlier provided scholarly links about the document. What I have been saying is that those scholars do not confirm the document and its age, but are speculating.

Yes, the dating is speculative, but no more than your dating or the dating of every book of the Bible.

I'm not really clear why you need this writing to be written in the 3rd or 4th century either. Do you feel a later date gives more validity to a non-trinitarian point of view?

I'm ready to let all this Didache dating die since it really doesn't matter regarding the Trinity and it is detracting from better arguments.

It all stems from post #62 on page 5, where I was addressing the material in the link he provided. The Didache uses a trinitarian formula for baptism, the same formula which is currently in most Bibles in Matt 28:19. This makes it possible that the original Matt 28:19 did have the trinitarian formula, but at the least, it puts the idea of the Trinity much earlier than JudaicChristian claims.

 

[Free]

First off, are “DISTINCT†and “SEPARATE†the same? I don’t think so and I don’t believe that you will agree either that they are the same. Your concept of Trinity says that the three persons are DISTINCT from each other but NOT SEPARATE.

So the bottom-line is that the Apologetics group here believes that God is one in Number. It’s a belief that even the Oneness people and the Unitarians could relate to. Whereas, I honestly believe that God is one in Unity. The Elohim (The plural of Eloah, God), who is one in Unity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 attests to this fact:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD (YHVH) our God (Elohim, plural referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who were all individually called God), is ONE (united) LORD.

The use of “ECHAD†of Genesis 2:24 best explains the “ECHAD†of Deuteronomy 6:4. Therefore, when Moses said that the husband and wife (TWO BEINGS) would become one (“ECHADâ€)…., that is a “collective one†of two beings.â€

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one [ECHAD] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

ONE IN UNITY is used in the case of Gen. 2:24, when the husband and wife were called ONE by God. How can the two in number, be One? This is possible only in the sense of UNITY.

We can understand John 10:30 in this sense, “I and my Father are one.†One in Unity not in number. It is also in this sense that the thousands can be one like the builders of the tower of Babel in Gen 11:6. Even the millions of Christians can be one in this sense according to John 17:21.

But that's just based on my own biblical opinion, therefore, there is no need to get excited.

God Bless

I'll try not to get excited. That's a good post and I both agree and disagree. We have to be careful with echad since it is about the equivalent of the English "one." It can mean something singular or it can mean something compound. With such a range of meaning, we must let the context determine the meaning.

In Deut 6:4 we cannot just go and get the meaning from Gen 2:24 and vice versa. Genesis 2:24 clearly shows the compound usage. Deut 6:4, on the other hand, shows no "compoundness," and therefore we should read it as being simply one. It is not an ontological statement about God, it is God setting himself above and apart from all the surrounding gods; it is a statement of monotheism, not of God's being.

It has been a long time since I looked into echad, but I believe there are instances where it certainly can be read as a compound unity for God. Or, as is the case with Deut 6:4, it cannot be argued that God isn't a compound unity, that he is absolutely only one person. But, IMO, I don't think we should make anything more of it other than it being a statement of monotheism.

There are numerous words in both the Hebrew and Greek which each have different meanings depending on their usage, and we cannot just use one instance to say that another instance should also mean the same.

Welcome to the forums, btw.

 

[JudaicChristian]

The Catholics have been caught before with forged documents, and forging scripture. The Didache is confirmed as a fact in the 3rd century, but before then it is questionable. The Trinity doctrine was not established until the third century. Had the Trinity formula or scripture been written in the age of the disciples or before, then it would not be an issue today. All of the Trinity proof text point to forgery as a matter of historical fact. If this was not so, then there would be no argument.

 

[Free]

The Didache is confirmed as a fact in the 3rd century, but before then it is questionable.

Please provide evidence that this is a fact. Until then, it is your opinion.

 

[westtexas]

The Didache is confirmed as a fact in the 3rd century, but before then it is questionable. The Trinity doctrine was not established until the third century.

This is a mis-statement. In your website (and possibly in this thread but as I stated I haven't read it completely yet) you attribute the first use of the Matthean baptismal formula to Tertullian. This is incorrect. Tertullian was influenced by the teachings of Justin Martyr (103-165 A.D.) who also used the Matthean formula of baptism in his "First Apology" Ch. 61--LXI
www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
So even if you care to disregard the Didache and the text of Matthew, this doctrine has still been taught much earlier than the 3rd or 4th century as you state.

Edited to add: Justin Martyr doesn't say when he was baptized but he states that this was the same formula which was administered to him.
Westtexas

 

[4given]

I'll try not to get excited. That's a good post and I both agree and disagree. We have to be careful with echad since it is about the equivalent of the English "one." It can mean something singular or it can mean something compound. With such a range of meaning, we must let the context determine the meaning.

In Deut 6:4 we cannot just go and get the meaning from Gen 2:24 and vice versa. Genesis 2:24 clearly shows the compound usage. Deut 6:4, on the other hand, shows no "compoundness," and therefore we should read it as being simply one. It is not an ontological statement about God, it is God setting himself above and apart from all the surrounding gods; it is a statement of monotheism, not of God's being.

It has been a long time since I looked into echad, but I believe there are instances where it certainly can be read as a compound unity for God. Or, as is the case with Deut 6:4, it cannot be argued that God isn't a compound unity, that he is absolutely only one person. But, IMO, I don't think we should make anything more of it other than it being a statement of monotheism.

There are numerous words in both the Hebrew and Greek which each have different meanings depending on their usage, and we cannot just use one instance to say that another instance should also mean the same.

Welcome to the forums, btw.

First of all, thank you for the warm welcome and for not being excited about the differences in our biblical opinion . It is really a privilege to part of this community and be able to be heard.

My question is …. how do we understand the usage of the words “collective one†in connection to the cited texts? No doubt about Moses was correct in his usages of word “ECHAD†ref. Gen. 2:24 by applying it to TWO BEINGS becoming one.

If that is “collective one†of TWO BEINGS, why would we assume that Moses’ usage of “ECHAD†in Deut. 6:4 is a “collective one†of ONE BEING? We cannot apply “collective one†to ONE entity because that is already ONE. You can only apply “collective one†to more than one entity. Therefore, when Moses applied the usage of the word “echad" to God in Deut. 6:4 it was applied to MORE THAN ONE ENTITY.

But according to the traditional trinity doctrine, God is not numerically THREE entities. God is numerically ONE entity. Therefore, following this same logic in reference to Deut. 6:4, it would be a erroneous misapplication of the usage of the word “ECHAD†to the concept of Trinity in reference to the above cited text.

The key to understanding what I am saying is on the DIVINE UNION. If we (humans) are to count the husband and wife, humans will say they are two. Likewise, if normal humans will count the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, humans will say they are three. However, let’s allow God to do the counting this time… according to Jesus Himself, husband and wife are ONE! So in God’s accounting, they are one. But humanly speaking they are two. In the same way, I believe Divinely speaking God is ONE, but humanly speaking they are three.

Again, the above analogy is only based on my own biblical opinion.

God Bless

 

[JudaicChristian]

Tertullian. CHAPTER LXI -- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Quote: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

Justin Martyr (also Justin the Martyr, Justin of Caesarea, Justin the Philosopher, Latin Iustinus Martyr or Flavius Iustinus) (103–165)
In chapter 63, Justin Myrtyr continues with the same line of thought; however, he concludes by referring to Christ as God. Let the reader beware however, that this is an English translation of the original Greek, and therefore could very well be mistranslated. The Koine Greek 'theos', without the definite article, can (and most often does) have a qualitative meaning, rather than a definitive meaning, such as "was divine" or "was a god (-like being)." The rest of Justin's writings seem to contradict this statement (that Christ is God), as it is currently translated into English. It is the one discordant note in the harmony of the rest of his writings.
While the English translation of Chapter 128 suggest the appellation of "God" when referring to Christ, the rest of the chapter confirms the beliefs held by Martyr are not in line with this translation:
• The pre-human Christ is called an Angel, or messenger of God.
• Christ's existence is the same as that of other angels, separate from God and unique - "numerically distinct".
In fact, in Chapter 128 of his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin directly refutes the Trinitarian explanation, later offered by Tertullian, that Jesus is connected to the Father in the same manner as a sunbeam is to the sun.

My question here would be, has that document been carbon dated? The reason for the question is because the Catholics have been caught falsifying documents before. At first Tertullian speaks in a Non-Trinitarian way then, blam, we get the Trinitarian formula. Even if the document is original, we see that it is even then disputed by others in that day.

 

[westtexas]

My question here would be, has that document been carbon dated? The reason for the question is because the Catholics have been caught falsifying documents before.

Darn those pesky Catholics. First they forged the Didache to make it look like an early writing, now they did it with Justin Martyr's work!:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny
Westtexas

 

[JudaicChristian]

Darn those pesky Catholics. First they forged the Didache to make it look like an early writing, now they did it with Justin Martyr's work!:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny
Westtexas

I fixed the wording to read correctly. Ha ha. Very funny.

 

[mamre]

In discussing the Trinity, the divinity of Christ is central.

But the doctrine of Trinity does not make such a claim. The Father and the Son are distinct persons. If you want to debate the Trinity, then please make arguments that apply to the Trinity. That would be an argument against Oneness/modalism theology and not trinitarianism.

I think you're contradicting yourself because protestants and catholics, as far as I know follow a creed that states that there is only ONE God which has only ONE substance. Having ONE substance means they are NOT distinct persons. An individual CANNOT be ONE person and be TWO distinct persons at the same time. That is a tremendous confusion.

First you guys say there is only ONE God, now your are saying there are TWO distinct divine persons. Well, if there are TWO distinct divine persons, than there are TWO GODS. Actually THREE, counting the Holy Ghost.

Again, not an argument against trinitarianism.

I am confused, what do you understand by Trinity?

So, by trinity, do you mean only ONE God that can divide himself into three persons but, at the same time is ONE person in substance.

Would you please clarify.


Have a good day,
mamre

 

[JudaicChristian]

If only Yahwah is immortal, and Yahshua's resurrection was dependant upon the Father, then immortality must be maintained by Yahwah.
1 Timothy 6
13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
Psalm 16:10
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.

Acts 2:27
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay.

Acts 2:31
Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.

Acts 13:35
So it is also stated elsewhere: “‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’

Acts 13:37
But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

 

[Free]

I think you're contradicting yourself because protestants and catholics, as far as I know follow a creed that states that there is only ONE God which has only ONE substance. Having ONE substance means they are NOT distinct persons. An individual CANNOT be ONE person and be TWO distinct persons at the same time. That is a tremendous confusion.

There is no contradiction here. The wording is very specific in order to avoid contradiction. No one is saying an individual can be one person and two distinct persons at the same time. The use of "being," "substance," and "persons" is to avoid saying such contradictory things. One must realize that there is a limit to the language with which one can describe God and the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And there really is no problem saying that one substance can be three distinct persons. There is an experiment known as the Triple Point of Water (can be any number of substances). At a specific temperature and pressure, water can coexist as a solid, liquid and gas. If water can do that, I see no reason as to why God cannot.

Triple point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First you guys say there is only ONE God, now your are saying there are TWO distinct divine persons. Well, if there are TWO distinct divine persons, than there are TWO GODS. Actually THREE, counting the Holy Ghost.

Trinitarians have always maintained that there is only one God. They have also always maintained that there are three distinct Persons. This does not equate to three Gods. Again, the language used is very specific to avoid the three errors of subordinationism (includes Arianism), polytheism, and modalism.

I am confused, what do you understand by Trinity?

Put as simply as possible, the doctrine of the Trinity states that within the one Being that is God, there exists three coequal, co-eternal Persons.

So, by trinity, do you mean only ONE God that can divide himself into three persons but, at the same time is ONE person in substance.

No, this the error of modalism and Oneness theology teaches.

 

[mamre]

There is no contradiction here. The wording is very specific in order to avoid contradiction. No one is saying an individual can be one person and two distinct persons at the same time. The use of "being," "substance," and "persons" is to avoid saying such contradictory things. One must realize that there is a limit to the language with which one can describe God and the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And there really is no problem saying that one substance can be three distinct persons. There is an experiment known as the Triple Point of Water (can be any number of substances). At a specific temperature and pressure, water can coexist as a solid, liquid and gas. If water can do that, I see no reason as to why God cannot.

Triple point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Trinitarians have always maintained that there is only one God. They have also always maintained that there are three distinct Persons. This does not equate to three Gods. Again, the language used is very specific to avoid the three errors of subordinationism (includes Arianism), polytheism, and modalism.


Put as simply as possible, the doctrine of the Trinity states that within the one Being that is God, there exists three coequal, co-eternal Persons.


No, this the error of modalism and Oneness theology teaches.

Free,
Since you have used science to try and explain Trinity. I believe I can use math without offending you.

Here it goes:

The mathematics of the Trinity theory.

This in accordance to your explanation that God is one being made up of three persons.

So, mathematically, here's what you are basically saying:

1 x God the Son
1 x God the Holy Ghost
1 x God the Father
Equals
1 x Being = 1Trinity = 1God

Therefore:
1God + 1God + 1God = 1God

Adding up you have:

3God = 1God OR 3 = 1

No matter how you twist it, 3 will never be equal to 1. So, the Trinity theory is mathematically impossible.

If you solve the equation you would have:

God = 1/3

Mathematically, Trinity would have three 1/3s of a God.
The scriptures don't say anything about any of the members of the Godhead being individually only 1/3 God.

So, either you have 3 that is equal to 1. Or, you have 1 that is divided into 3 which makes each divine person 1/3 God.

So over the centuries, people have tried to explain the Trinity theory and have never being able to understand it.

Two reasons for that:

A. 3 is not 1 and will never be.

B. In trying to skirt the mathematics truth, the Trinity theorist cannot explain why the individual members of the Trinity being part of 1 God are not only 1/3 of a God.

That's because Trinity is not a concept found in the scriptures.

Some try to extrapolate the scriptures. They say, it's like three different manifestations. Others, like you, say they are like three different states (like states of the matter). Fine, and dandy, but these are not in the scriptures. You can see how much explanation you need.

On the other hand, a little child would understand the words Father and Son. They know that Father is ONLY ONE, and that He has begotten a Son that He gave to save us. No need to extrapolate, ONE God that has a Son.


Trinity is a concept invented by men.

Again, the concept of Trinity itself is not found in the scriptures.

Christian apologists from every age have UTILIZED some passages in the scriptures to explain or justify such an extraneous concept. THAT doesn't make Trinity a true concept.



have a good day,
mamre

 

[JudaicChristian]

It has never been shown that the scriptures that disprove a Trinity have been falsified.

 

[Free]

Free,
Since you have used science to try and explain Trinity. I believe I can use math without offending you.

Here it goes:

The mathematics of the Trinity theory.

This in accordance to your explanation that God is one being made up of three persons.

So, mathematically, here's what you are basically saying:

1 x God the Son
1 x God the Holy Ghost
1 x God the Father
Equals
1 x Being = 1Trinity = 1God

Therefore:
1God + 1God + 1God = 1God

Adding up you have:

3God = 1God OR 3 = 1

No matter how you twist it, 3 will never be equal to 1. So, the Trinity theory is mathematically impossible.

Math can neither prove nor disprove the Trinity, just as my example of the Triple Point can never prove the Trinity. I only used that example because it shows that it is possible for one substance to coexist in three different states.

You stated: "Having ONE substance means they are NOT distinct persons." Yet, if a created element can, under the right circumstances, coexist in three distinct states, yet remain H2O, then it is possible that the Creator can coexist as three distinct persons and yet remain one substance.

Besides, that is not what I was saying. I was very clear and purposeful in what I said. There are three Persons within the one Being that is God. Therefore, 3P=1G. I specifically stated that it is not 3G=1G because that is contradictory. I'll say it again: the wording of the Trinity and wording in the Creeds is very specific to avoid such problems.

And I was careful to qualify all that by saying language has its limits, particularly when we use it in an attempt to define God.

 

[Free]

It has never been shown that the scriptures that disprove a Trinity have been falsified.

There are no Scriptures that prove the Trinity false, that's the point. Scriptures taken out of context is what makes it appear as though the Trinity is false.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Who can really say if Yahwah and Yahshua are the same substance. We all presume that those people are the same substance, and that is what makes them immortal. As for the Holy Spirit being a third person, that was decided by the Catholic Church in the 4th century.

 

[mamre]

Math can neither prove nor disprove the Trinity, just as my example of the Triple Point can never prove the Trinity. I only used that example because it shows that it is possible for one substance to coexist in three different states.

It has just disproved it.
Trinity is either 3 Gods that are just 1 God, which is mathematically impossible. OR it is three 1/3 Gods that make up 1 God, which is mathematically true but is not what the scriptures say.

You stated: "Having ONE substance means they are NOT distinct persons." Yet, if a created element can, under the right circumstances, coexist in three distinct states, yet remain H2O, then it is possible that the Creator can coexist as three distinct persons and yet remain one substance.

You are spinning dangerously. Jesus Christ IS NOT a distinct state of God. He is the SON OF GOD. Neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost are distinct states of God. This is not scripture.

This is NOT Christian doctrine at all.

Besides, that is not what I was saying. I was very clear and purposeful in what I said. There are three Persons within the one Being that is God. Therefore, 3P=1G. I specifically stated that it is not 3G=1G because that is contradictory. I'll say it again: the wording of the Trinity and wording in the Creeds is very specific to avoid such problems.

And I was careful to qualify all that by saying language has its limits, particularly when we use it in an attempt to define God.

Yes, I agree with you very much, language indeed limits us. But Math doesn't.

So, you say 3Persons = 1God

The problem with this is that when you say 3P than it may or may not be 3 Gods. We need to be precise as the truth is precise. And we must agree with the scriptures. Therefore, what you are saying is that a P is may not necessarily be a G. Or, in other words, the Persons in the Trinity may or may not be Gods.

Lets say they are 3P then:

You said again: Trinity is One Being made up of Three other Beings. Since the Scriptures say that Jesus is God and the Holy Ghost and the Father are Gods also, I will stick with the scriptures.

In mathematics this is expressed thus:
If P = God (as per the scriptures)

Than 1(God) + 1(God) + (1 God) = 1(God)

3(God) = 1(God)

Then you have:

3 = 1 Because 3 cannot be 1, this is FALSE

You need to solve the equation to find the truth.

Therefore:

3(God) = 1(God)

Thus,

God = 1/3 = This is TRUE

So,

If 3 = 1 is FALSE then the theory of Trinity is UNTRUE

Why? Because it is mathematically false.


IF God = 1/3 is TRUE then the theory of Trinity is UNTRUE

Why? Because 1/3 of a God is not in the scriptures.


You can spin language, but you cannot spin Math as it deals ONLY with the truth. Truth comes from ONE place only, God. It really doesn't matter how much you spin this, it will never be found in the scriptures, because the scriptures are true and they come from God. Whereas the trinity theory comes from men.

You can hide Math, but not spin it. The enemy of mankind cannot change math, but he can try to hide it.

have a good one
mamre

 

[Pizzaguy]

I will stick with the scriptures.

You need to solve the equation to find the truth.

If you are going to stick with scripture, throw the math out.
If you are going to stick to an equation, throw scripture out.

I love math and science, but I would never apply a mathematical formula to the trinity.

 

[JudaicChristian]

If Trinitarianism is true, then why didn't Yahwah or the prophets say so? Why did it take people who were not prophets of Yahwah, but men who were recent converts from Paganism to reveal this?

The Greatest Commandment
Mark 12
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?â€
29 “The most important one,†answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.â€

32 “Well said, teacher,†the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

The word "echad" can also mean "only," the same is true in the English language.