Another Trinity Argument

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

  1. 189
    36
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    36
    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. 2,273
    692
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    692
    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. 189
    36
    28
    Cristo

    Cristo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    36
    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.
     
    Tsaphah likes this.
  4. 2,273
    692
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    692
    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
     

Share This Page