Another Trinity Argument

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Cristo, Sep 10, 2018.

  1. 190
    37
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Hi...

    I was watching a youtube video the other day about a preacher who believed in the Trinity(obviously), and he was giving his arguments for it. Of course the same scriptures are always used to go back and forth for both sides and usually the people just agree to disagree. At least that has usually been my experience when debating with somebody about the trinity. However as I was listening to the video talking about "firstborn" and how they justify their belief something occurred to me.

    You see trinitarians cannot believe that Jesus was Gods first creation, or firstborn, because that would mean that he was not eternal, which he MUST be in order for the trinity to be true. So my question to them is this: Then who IS???
    Who IS the firstborn creation of God if Jesus isn't? Who is the BEGINNING of creation by God?

    I mean obviously there would be a firstborn right?

    I think this may be a difficult argument for them to overcome, for if Jesus wasn't Gods first creation, then somebody else is. This would mean of course that Jesus wasn't first in ALL things. I'm not sure how a trinitarian could overcome that reasoning.

    (Col 1:18) “.18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things;

    I wanted to get some opinions, maybe some devils advocate to try to overcome that reasoning point. I can't think of any....
     
    ExLuther and SingleCell like this.
  2. 2,367
    735
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hi Cristo,
    It is not likely that you will be able to refute the Trinity believers mindset. I always quote the words from the song; “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel. “a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Lie, lie, lie,.” My wife says, “If Jesus was GOD, what prevented Satan from taking over while He was dead?” I have posted several places about this subject. Do a search on the word “prototokos”.
    It will list 11 headings on the subject. There is enough information that should stop the idiocy of a Trinity, or Jesus being GOD. The other part of the Trinity doctrine is the spirit being a distinct “personage” of GOD.

    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” ( Gen 1:2 DNKJB )

    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” ( Gen 1:2 KJV )

    It will make no difference which version or translation you use, because all are pretty much the same.
    The Point to make is this: If the Spirit of God is a “personage” of GOD, is HE flying over the water? Is HE now a separate person from GOD?

    The argument that usually stuns them is this: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” ( Mt 1:18 KJV )

    “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” ( Mt 1:20 KJV )

    The other account is the announcement to Zacharias about his wife Elisabeth being pregnant by the Holy Ghost. “For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.” ( Lu 1:15 KJV )

    Here is where it gets “hairy”. If the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is a personage of the Trinity, then HE had sex, not only with Mary, but Elisabeth also. Sex with two different women, six months apart. So, Elisabeth and Mary were “baby mommy’s”. EEEKKKK!

    This is where the Babylonian sophist idea of a three-part GOD got it’s start. The Trinity is a philosophic idea that is found in many other early societies. It’s most influential society was the Greeks, followed by the Romans.
     
    SingleCell likes this.
  3. 190
    37
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I disagree. Yes some trinitarians have an unchangeable mindset regardless of what you show them, however, i'm certain there are those who just haven't heard the right argument yet, or line of reasoning. Many people want the truth and are willing to critically examine their thoughts regarding the trinity.

    Although your arguments above have validity to them, I prefer to keep it as simple as possible. In fact I'm certain i've seen you recommend the K.I.S.S. analogy many times. So.....

    In my 30+ years of debating on the trinity, i've never heard an argument as simple as the one above regarding the firstborn. IF Jesus is NOT the firstborn(just preeminent as trinitarians teach) then WHO WAS? (k.i.s.s.)

    In fact it's one of the only questions I can think of that the trinitarian will not be able to find some rebuttal to because obviously the bible doesn't say somebody else is the firstborn. Which is why it is so powerful.

    Followed up with the reasoning point that if somebody else was created first besides Jesus, then Jesus CANNOT be first in ALL things. Col 1:18. Again......simple.
     
    ExLuther and Tsaphah like this.
  4. 2,367
    735
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Hi Cristo,
    Here is one argument for Jesus being “firstborn”, and “God” at the same time. This is rather lengthy, so I will give the corresponding web location at the bottom. It covers all of Colossians 1.
    I don’t believe a word of it. To many persons it may sound logical, but to me it is philosophical rhetoric.

    The Adam Clarke Commentary

    THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
    http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=1&verse=18#Col1_18

    Copyright Statement
    The Adam Clarke Commentary is a derivative of an electronic edition prepared by GodRules.net.

    Bibliography Information
    Clarke, Adam. “Commentary on Colossians 1”. “The Adam Clarke Commentary”. http://classic.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001
     
  5. 2,367
    735
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many scriptures that can be used to challenge the “idea” of a “Trinity”, or that GOD is three parts as in, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” ( 1 Joh 2:1 KJV ) If Jesus Christ is GOD, why is it necessary for him to speak to himself as Son to Father?

    If Jesus is GOD, was he talking to himself here? ( Mt 27:46 )
    If Jesus is GOD, what prevented Satan from taking over all creation while Jesus was dead? ( Mt 27:50, 57-60 )

    If Jesus is GOD, how could Satan offer to give him all the kingdoms of the world if HE already owned them? ( Lu 4:5-7 ) And, was Satan asking GOD to worship him=Satan? ( Lu 4:7 ) And, If Jesus is GOD, why did he tell Satan “for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” ( Lu 4:8 ) Did not Satan know who GOD was?

    The first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century (200 to 300 AD) by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended his theology against "Praxeas", though he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine. (Just one source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity )

    About Tertullian:
    http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm#2

    http://www.tertullian.org/works.htm

     
  6. 2,367
    735
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” ( Joh 20:17 KJV )

    Who was Jesus talking about? According to those who believe in a trinity ( 3 in 1 GOD ), He is all of the above: Christ, Father/GOD/Holy Spirit !!! But wait: He is his own Father. He is his own Son. He is his own Holy Spirit. All three in one, whenever and whatever He chooses to be. It’s like putting on a different suit each time.

    Imagine this scene: Jesus and his disciples are sitting and talking. Jesus asked them, “. . . who do you say that I am?Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” What did Jesus say? “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” It appears that Jesus had on His Christ suit, at that time. It also appears that Jesus was in heaven as the Father when He revealed Himself to Peter as the Father.

    That scripture at John 20:17 must have had a word mistranslated. That word was “ascend”. It should have been “changed”. Ha Ha Ha, in more ways than one. Get it?? :eek: ;) :rolleyes:
     
  7. 190
    37
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Again...good information T, but not simple enough for the trinitarian to take the time and ponder on. Most if not all the arguments you present have rebuttals to them by a studied trinitarian.

    Why not just ask if Jesus wasn't the beginning of creation then WHO was?
     
  8. 2,367
    735
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    o_O You will NEVER convert a believer in the Trinity. You could say; They are Pig Headed! :eek: And blind!
     
  9. 3,750
    693
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes Received:
    693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I wish there was a path to opening the eyes of Christians unto truths of Scripture. At times I feel as though the current state of things is a matter of our modern information world, and other times as though it is simply human nature.

    Two examples I think of when this subject comes to mind:

    I have seen many new ones learning of the milk of Scripture, simply to go onto head strong ideas, closed eared if you will. It's as though the psyche only allows one to believe what they see before them; and as I think back on my own journey through the text, I have been guilty of this very thing myself.

    As well, with so much division within understanding the text, many times ones stance in understanding is simply based on their source of information, regardless of accuracy. To me it is disappointing because of my love of the Word, and my jealousy for it; however, there is no way our LORD would not have known the state of the Bible today.

    Or perhaps it is just a matter of the complexity of the text.

    The next example I think of is the middle ages:

    The Catholic church had a tight grip on what people heard from the text. No translations were allowed in the common languages, and when one heard the Word, it was highly regulated by those who had charge over the peoples.

    Was this system any better then what we have today? With two extremes we have on one hand a complete totalitarian dissemination of Spiritual knowledge, while on the other a complete open door for a billion differing views, depending on the number of individual readers.

    I highly cherish the understanding I have currently been given within the text. It is a treasure beyond my ability to vocalize, for within this knowledge contains the very proof of God himself; but, without being able to ingrain that knowledge into others, of what reason do I contain it? Surely such a vast undertaking spanning decades is not for my own benefit, and so here in lies the only outcome I can foresee.

    It would appear to me, just as the powers of the two witnesses match the plagues of Egypt, the only thing that will convince the world we live in, is fulfillment.

    May God's will; however, be done...

    PS: This subject has been one that has heavily weighed on my mind lately, and I just wasn't sure how to justify it, so I decided to follow what I believed is our Fathers direction. I have begun writing a book to all Christians. I am 2/3 through a 50k word work, that discusses many of the subjects that are so commonly misunderstood within the Bible. The difference being, I am writing to all Christians without denominational identity, and without using the name of Jehovah, directly. It will however contain a chapter on God's name, but I'm interested in seeing if I can reach a large audience by writing without the ability of the reader to identify any denomination, and to make sure it's content applies to all.

    In the end, if it be by Jehovah's will, it will have success in some manner he wishes.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019 at 4:25 AM
    Tsaphah likes this.
  10. 2,367
    735
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know what you mean brother. My family tried for many years to reach me. They were Jehovah's Witnesses. I hated receiving the Awake and Watchtower in the mail, when I was in the military. I resisted for many years afterward. Jehovah never gave up on me. As I look back, I now see His hand in arranging my life. I'm pretty hard headed. :eek:

    I love the cover of your book. I can hardly wait for your it. Arriving at a particular way of writing is hard. Especially trying to not influence a person by a specific doctrine. Let the word speak for itself. I was recently reading a book on philosophy and came across this statement by Voltaire.

    “I am tired of all these people who govern states from the recesses of their garrets*; these legislators who rule the world at two cents a sheet;... unable to govern their wives or their households they take great pleasure in regulating the universe. It is impossible to settle these matters with simple and general formulae, or by dividing all people into fools and knaves on the one hand, and on the other, ourselves. Truth has not the name of a party”; and he writes to Vauvenargues: “It is the duty of a man like you to have preferences, but not exclusions.” (Quotation by Voltaire)
    Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (p. 102). Kindle Edition.

    * Garret = a room or unfinished part of a house just under the roof; attic, cockloft, loft.

    Vauvenargues: = Luc de Clapiers, marquis de Vauvenargues was a French writer and moralist. He died at age 31, in broken health, having published the year prior—anonymously—a collection of essays and aphorisms with the encouragement of Voltaire, his friend.

    “Wicked people are always surprised to find ability in those that are good.”

    “All grand thoughts come from the heart.”

    “Patience is the art of hoping.”

    Keep up the good work my friend. In your chapter about God’s Name, be sure to mention that other names used in the Bible are not pronounced as the original name was. But, the general public accepts the modern day pronunciation. Examples are: Jesus, John, Moses, Ezekiel, Matthew, etc. Even YHWH, Jehovah, I AM, are not according to the original. :)



     

Share This Page