CHRISTIAN APOSTOLIC ANSWERS
trlitteral@usa.net
One God | Salvation | Baptism | Faith
Touch and Agree? | One Body? | One Liners
This challenge is rather simple. In part one I will list phrases commonly used to define
the Trinity and I challenge anyone to give me direct Scriptural evidence they are Biblically
based and if they are not then the challenge is to define the Trinity without using these terms. In the second part of the challenge I will make some assertions that must be true if the doctrine of the Trinity is true and then weigh them against the Bible. The
challenge is to destroy my line of reasoning. In part three I will present my hypothesis as
to the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity and will challenge anyone to put forth a better
one.
Three in One; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost; eternally begotten; three distinct but co-equal and co-eternal; three separate but united in power and purpose; persons in the Godhead; the person of the Holy Ghost; the person of the Father; three but not three but One; One expressed as three, triune God... I certainly haven't gotten them all but if these cannot be found to be Biblically sound then one must rethink the doctrine or teaching of the Trinity. I will subject each case or submission to a series of "acid test" to see if they hold water so to speak. For example the word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible but "Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." describes or rather "defines" the term quite well. If one can supply similar proof for these terms it will be accepted. If however one would try to use the above passage to support the belief among so called "homosexual Christians" that the sin referred to above is for a homosexual to have intercourse out side of his or her "calling" based upon the word "also" above I would have to point out that "also" was arbitrarily added by the translators. I would also like to point out that the verse says "their blood will be upon them" meaning both had committed an abomination. Let's remember that fornication was not a death offense. You get the idea. Let's address these one-by-one.
Three-in-One: Sorry guys but 1 John 5:7 was added by an editor in the early 1500's. Even Martin Luther rejected this verse and he was Trinitarian.
God the Son: Many, if not all of the other statements above can be covered in a discussion of this phrase.
God is Eternal and the word son means "offspring". A being that is eternal and an offspring is not a mystery but an impossibility! If language is to have any meaning we may describe "seeming" contradictions but not literal impossibilities. In Heb1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" God says "this day" have I begotten thee in reference to Jesus. Which day? The only answer is the day that Mary was visited by Gabriel. What the Bible expressly says is that "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" 1Tim 3:16. Before the advent of Jesus, God was described as a Spirit and this was confirmed in John 4:24, "God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth." If we combine these two points of information we have the answer. The Spirit that is God was shown in the flesh that was not God.
If what I have said is true what would we expect to find? I think the first thing to look for is Scriptures that would point out the difference between the Spirit and the flesh. At this point I will assume the reader believes that God is eternal, all-knowing, all- powerful and present in and beyond every place and time. Let's see if this is true of Jesus?
Well we have shown above that God Himself said that Jesus was begotten or began upon a certain day. Jesus also refers to Himself as "the son of man". God cannot be the offspring of his own creation. We really need go no further since if any one of the statements above is not true of Jesus it would prove that He was not God the Son; but to further understand the implications of the term let us continue. Was Jesus all-knowing or omniscient? Let us consider: Mark 8:17, "And when Jesus knew [it], he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?" The word knew above is:"to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel." and Mark 13:32, "But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
When we consider whether Jesus was all-powerful or omnipotent we have to go no farther than the tomb, in which Jesus could not have opened one eye and as to omnipresence Jesus was only physically in one place at any given time. How then do we account for the fact that Jesus spoke as God himself?
Again consider: 1 Tim 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." and John 14:10, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." If we add to this:Col 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Let's examine the notion put forth by Jesus and Paul that the Father dwelt in Him.
If the Son were indwelt by the Father what might we expect to find in the Scripture? Jesus as the Christ or "saturated with the Spirit of God" would be able to speak equally as the Eternal Spirit and as a temporal or finite creation. Does this ever happen? Conside: John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." after which claim the Jews pointed out that Jesus wasn't even fifty. This also accounts for the fact that Jesus is described as Eternal and having a beginning: eternal in the Spirit and begotten in the flesh. Jesus as the Christ would be omniscient in the Spirit but not all the knowlege of the Spirit was imparted to the flesh. The Spirit would retain the fulness of the Godhead while being able to selectively restrict the attributes of the Godhead in the flesh. The flesh would call the Spirit God: John 20:17, "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." The flesh could be completely subject to the Spirit: Isaiah 42:1, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." The Spirit in the flesh would still be fully God: Matthew 8:26-27, "And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! "
As the final word from the Word consider: Numbers 23:19, "God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Here the Bible specifically says that God is not the son of man, a term Jesus used for Himself many, many times. This can only be explained as I have done so above by God's grace. Jesus the son of man and the
Son of God after the flesh and Christ the anointed or
saturated by and of the Spirit!
