Is the Trinity Clearly Taught in the Bible? An Answer to Cecelia
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2010
by Shannon Summers
Cecilia, I commend you for all the research and hard work you put into answering my question. You obviously are very sincere and believe the scriptures teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, a trinity. In your first large paragraph you make some very good arguments to support the concept that it takes discernment to understand the things of God to which I agree. The key is, though, determining what things are of God, and what are of men, that is, the product of human philosophy or interpretation, rather than God's truth. Having studied the Bible for many years, and being acquainted with many anti-trinitarian arguments that have been put forth by knowledgeable Bible scholars, it appears to me that the Trinity doctrine is very far from clear-cut in the scriptures. In addition I found some of your arguments far from convincing.
New International Version: "For there are three that testify: The Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are in agreement."
Today's English Version: "There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three agree."
Jerusalem Bible: "So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and all three of them agree."
Revised Standard Version: "There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree."
New English Bible: "For there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement."
Needless to say, your use of a scripture containing fraudulent words as your final and concluding argument diminishes your credibility.
In addition your statement that the King James Version is the closest to the original Hebrew diminishes your credibility further. The KJV was translated in the year 1611 (almost 400 years ago). At the time very few Hebrew and Greek Bible manuscripts were available to the translators. In contrast today we have hundreds of such manuscripts, many of which are older than those used by the KJV translators. As a result, Bible scholars today recognize that the KJV contains numerous errors. That is one reason that many modern Bible translations have been made so as to give us a more accurate rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The KJV is generally viewed by Bible scholars, not as the closest to the original Hebrew (or Greek for that matter), but to the contrary a relatively poor translation. The fact that you are unaware of such leads one to wonder how reliable your other arguments are as well. (The NKJV, translated in 1975, basically follows the original translation, though apparently eliminating some of the old English to make it more readable, but fails to challenge or correct many of the errors of the original translation, including 1 John 5:7, 8.)
You quote Genesis 1:2 which speaks of "God's spirit" and state that God has a spirit to which I agree. However, that does not prove that God's spirit is a separate person or the third person of a trinity. To the contrary the expression is possessive; that is the "spirit" mentioned belongs to God, the Father. Various scriptures would lead one to conclude that the expression "God's spirit" refers to his power in action, the energy or force that he sends forth to accomplish his will, not to a separate being or person. For example: Acts 1:8, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." (all scriptures from the NKJV, unless otherwise stated); Luke 1:35, " The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you"; Luke 24:49, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."
Genesis 1:26, 27: On the surface your argument sounds good; however, I wonder if you aren't taking a too rigid interpretation of things. If your argument were correct, then why would God say in "Let us create man in our image our likeness". By your own argument that would mean at least two individuals were involved. You state, "If Jesus & the Spirit are separate beings then it should state God created them in THEIR image?" Yet a similar pronoun, "our" is used. That suggests at least two beings." Perhaps you are unaware that serious non-trinitarian Bible scholars view Jesus Christ as the "Beginning of the creation of God" (Revelation 3:14); his "only begotten Son" brought forth by God before anything else was created and whom he used as an instrument in creation, as explained at Hebrews 1:2, "(God) has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds". It says God (He) made the worlds, but through [His Son]. This is consistent with 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6: "yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things ." Note it says there is just one God and that is the Father. All things are " of" him, or "from" him, the source of creation, whereas they are "through" (by means of [an agent used by God]) Jesus Christ. Also, this one (Jesus) was made "Lord" (or master) by God, the Father (See Acts 2:36: " God [the Father that is] has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.) So God is the creator, but he used Jesus, His prehuman first Son as the agent of creation. That's who he was talking to when he said, "Let us make man in our image." The fact that it then says man was made in the image of God is accurate. Like man, Jesus (even to a greater degree) was in the image of God (Colossians 1:15 ); therefore, making man in God's image was also making him in "our" or "their image". It appears to me that your rigid interpretation of this verse is reading into more than was ever intended. The point is this is not a "clear" proof of the trinity. The verse can be easily understood differently.
John 1:1: Various unbiased language scholars view the phrase "the Word (Jesus) was God" as more accurately translated "The Word was a Divine Being." As the beginning of God's creative works, Jesus, God's firstborn, made in God's image, was indeed that. For example Greek scholar, Jason David BeDuhn in his book Truth in Translation says that this is the most obvious sense of the Greek. He devotes a whole chapter of 22 pages in his book to this one scripture, and concludes that the common translation "the Word was God" is the result of "doctrinal bias"; that translators "made sure their translation came out in accord with their beliefs", but in doing so they have ignored the "most obvious sense of the Greek."
John 6:46: Contrary to your reasoning the verse says "Jesus has seen the Father", not that he was the Father. Being with God the Father from the very beginning of creation Jesus certainly had "seen the Father" and knew him better than anyone else. Note it says he was "from God" (sent by God), not that he was God. Jesus never claimed that.
John 10:30: Jesus helps us understand what he meant by this at John 17:20-22, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one." When Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one, just as he and his Father were one, he clearly did not mean that they all might become one person. Rather, his concern was that they remain in harmony; that they maintain Christian unity of mind and thought. The phrase " just as We are one" makes it obvious that God and Christ are also one in unity of mind and thought. If it meant "one person" than the oneness of the disciples would not be "just as" their oneness. Also, the words, "as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You" mean basically the same thing, oneness of mind and thought, harmony. This becomes obvious by the words "that they may be one in us". The words "in us" do not mean the disciples would become part of God, but that they would be in harmony in God. Galatians 3:28 demonstrates this type of unity, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The "one in Christ" there implies harmony, unity, being of the same mind and belief, because of their acceptance of Christ as their Savior. For these reasons John 10:30 does not prove Jesus is God.
John 8:58: Many unbiased Bible scholars view the phrase "before Abraham was I am" to mean "before Abraham was I was in existence" (Living Bible) or "I lived before Abraham". Note the context of John 8:58. The question of the Jews had to do with age, not identity. Jesus' reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Being God's first spirit Son, he clearly lived before Abraham. Even well-know Trinitarian scholar A. T. Robertson admits regarding the Greek word used, "The verb (ei-mi) sometimes it does express existence like any other verb, as in John 8:58 ."
Isaiah 43:10: Your point here is dependant on the scriptures above, which does not appear to be clear-cut proof of the trinity to many people who do not have pre-conceived beliefs to that conclusion.
1 John 5:20: "That we may know him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE". If you read this verse closely you will realize that you are misapplying the phrase "This is the true God" to Jesus, whereas the context seems to apply it to God the Father, the one referred to as the "His". Note the context as we quote the entire verse, "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." It tells us the Son of God came to give us an understanding that we may know Him who is true (that is God, the Father) in (or by means of) Jesus. This is the true God (the Father). Jesus revealed him to us or gave us an understanding of him. It does not say Jesus is the true God. The article "this" refers back to the "His" in "His Son". The phrase "Him who is true" is the same as the "His" in the phrase "His Son Jesus Christ". Thus, consistently the phrase "This is the true God" must also refer to the one who has a Son that revealed Him to us.
John 7:29: This verse, like many others, says Jesus was sent by God, not that he is God.
No wonder Jesus declared, "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 ). No wonder Jesus spoke of his Father "as the only true God" (John 17:3), and that He was "his God" (John 20:17 ). No wonder 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, "The head of Christ is God." No wonder 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." No wonder even in the future when God's kingdom rules in the hands of his Son, when all things have been made subject to Christ, then Christ will submit himself to God. (Read 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28.)
So, in conclusion, Cecilia, I must still say that trinity teaching is not a clear-cut Bible teaching. As The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges, "The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, until the end of the fourth century ( my comment: that's 350 years after Christ's death). Among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." The Encyclopedia Brittanica states, "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema of the Old Testament: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4) The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries."
What it appears has happened is that a human philosophy or interpretation developed gradually and became dogma. Thereafter, such dogma influenced the teaching of the Church and even Bible translation. The result was that the Church looked to the Bible to support its dogma, rather than honestly determining what the Scriptures actually say. This is a serious charge, but an honest examination of the matter, may well lead one to conclude that it is supported by both the facts and the scriptures.
This Article has been viewed 441 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)I very much enjoyed your article on the Trinity. Your knowledge of the Bible is very good and you sound to me like you may be a Jehovah's witness, if so dont hide it be proud of the truth. [John18:20] Jesus said i spoke nothing in secret, so if Jesus was God he would have said so! [Isaiah 45:5] Iam Jehovah and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God.
In meditating about when Satan was tempting Jesus, one of the temptations was to offer him all the kingdoms of the world if he did an act of worship. It would be pointless to make such an offer to the God of the universe wouldn't it? : ) Why and for what possible reason would God ever need to do an act of worship to Satan or anyone else? It just isn't logical.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.