The Theological Impossibility of the Trinity

[2ducklow]

Most who argue against trinitarianism would rather lambast it and never give rationale to how the Word was God. .

Strange that a trinitarian would call upon rationale to defeat anothers argument, since mixing trinity and rationale is like mixing water and oil..
Why don't you call upon rationale in the case of the trinitarian argument that 3 is one? As to your question, the word was god in the same way that a car is red. a car is not equal to the color red and the word is not equal to god. red and god are qualitative predicate nominatives. Qualitative predicate nominatives act pretty much like adjectives, so that 'the car was red" is pretty much the same as saying "it was a red car"; likewise, saying "the word was god" is pretty much like saying "it was the divine word". Disagreeing with this explanation, as I know you do, isn't having no rationale arguement.


So your assertion that we don't have rationale is ludicrous. you just chose to ignore any rationale arguement that we have.
More probably you are trying to find anything irrationale about our arguements to counter the multitudes of irrationalities in the trinity doctrine that have been thrown against you. well there are none but keep looking if you find one we can correct it easily enough, which trintiarians cannot do with their doctrine that is '' beyond human understanding" as many trinitarians admit. It would be wise in the future not to resort to calling unitarian arguments irrationale for that is the trinitarian black hole.

I have explained this to you before, now you pretend like there is no rationale argument out there. ignoreing our rationale arguements doesn't equal no rationale arguement. go figure. you accuse us of having no rationale arugment for john 1.1 yet your argument is that the word is some being in heaven, who came down and changed into flesh, while at the same time is also the spoken and written word of god. And you choose to defeat our arguments with an assertion that we have no rationale argument? I'm sure you don't see this picture, but every nontrintiarian does.

 

[gort]

Strange that a trinitarian would call upon rationale to defeat anothers argument, since mixing trinity and rationale is like mixing water and oil..
Why don't you call upon rationale in the case of the trinitarian argument that 3 is one? As to your question, the word was god in the same way that a car is red. a car is not equal to the color red and the word is not equal to god. red and god are qualitative predicate nominatives. Qualitative predicate nominatives act pretty much like adjectives, so that 'the car was red" is pretty much the same as saying "it was a red car"; likewise, saying "the word was god" is pretty much like saying "it was the divine word". Disagreeing with this explanation, as I know you do, isn't having no rationale arguement.


So your assertion that we don't have rationale is ludicrous. you just chose to ignore any rationale arguement that we have.
More probably you are trying to find anything irrationale about our arguements to counter the multitudes of irrationalities in the trinity doctrine that have been thrown against you. well there are none but keep looking if you find one we can correct it easily enough, which trintiarians cannot do with their doctrine that is '' beyond human understanding" as many trinitarians admit. It would be wise in the future not to resort to calling unitarian arguments irrationale for that is the trinitarian black hole.

I have explained this to you before, now you pretend like there is no rationale argument out there. ignoreing our rationale arguements doesn't equal no rationale arguement. go figure. you accuse us of having no rationale arugment for john 1.1 yet your argument is that the word is some being in heaven, who came down and changed into flesh, while at the same time is also the spoken and written word of god. And you choose to defeat our arguments with an assertion that we have no rationale argument? I'm sure you don't see this picture, but every nontrintiarian does.

You have given a perfect example of when I say,

Most who argue against trinitarianism would rather lambast it and never give rationale to how the Word was God.

 

[2ducklow]

You have given a perfect example of when I say,

Most who argue against trinitarianism would rather lambast it and never give rationale to how the Word was God.

And you have given a perfect example of how you easily ignore my qualitative predicate nominative explanation and pretend like my qualitative predicate nominative explanation doesn't exist. Just ignore it and it doesen't exist right? , then you can continue with your false accusations that I have no rationale for john 1.1, just play your little pretend game. pretend like 3 is one is perfectly rational.

you lambasted us nontrins with an accusation that we never give rationale as to how the word was god, and say that we lambast you.. I gave a rationale explanation for john 1.1 , you just ignored it with a repeated accusation of us lambasting you and the repeated false unsupported accustation that we don't have rationale explanation for john 1.1 . but then perhaps the concept of qualitative predicate nominatives is something you are unfamiliar with. well qualitative predicate nominatives are not irrational. What is irrational are statements such as 3 are one which trinitarians tried to put in 1john 5.7. asserting that qualitative predicate nomniatives are irrational is definitely mixed up thinking.

 

[gort]

Robertson, who wrote 47+ book on the greek language would not agree with your thoughts that the word was God in the same way as it was the divine word or your red car analogy.

And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

Robertson

I recall you have no formal education in the greek language? If I'm wrong

 

[k2svpete]

Gort, let me break this down to a nice little analogy that is consistent with the concepts of language of the day.

An architect has an idea for a house. That plan is formulated in his mind and they can see every detail of the plan.

Next, the plan is written down into a form that is readily understandable.

The plan is enacted, and results in a house, consistent with the idea the architect had in the beginning.

Now, people would look at you strangely if you equated the house as the architect, but there is no dispute that the house is of the architect.

Replace word with house and God with architect and you will come to understand what it is that is being presented. What is also rather important is to understand that in both Deut and Mark, God is confirmed as one God (single, not multiples) and there are no others beside Him. That quite clearly puts things in perspective.

Think also of references made to sporting teams. Commentators can say that the team played as one etc. but the meaning is clearly that they played as a team with the same purpose and being of the same mind, they acted.

It is prudent to also acknowledge the effect on events such as the Renaissance on writers and scolars of the time and time following such events. The Renaissance re-introduced many elements of pagan thought and religion which did effect teachers and theologans of the time. Luther was writing in post Renaissance time and also to a population that was heavily influenced by Catholic teaching, as he was.

Bit of a case of finding what you're looking for when you have already made up your mind.

 

[gort]

Gort, let me break this down to a nice little analogy that is consistent with the concepts of language of the day.

An architect has an idea for a house. That plan is formulated in his mind and they can see every detail of the plan.

Next, the plan is written down into a form that is readily understandable.

The plan is enacted, and results in a house, consistent with the idea the architect had in the beginning.

Now, people would look at you strangely if you equated the house as the architect, but there is no dispute that the house is of the architect.

Replace word with house and God with architect and you will come to understand what it is that is being presented. What is also rather important is to understand that in both Deut and Mark, God is confirmed as one God (single, not multiples) and there are no others beside Him. That quite clearly puts things in perspective.

Think also of references made to sporting teams. Commentators can say that the team played as one etc. but the meaning is clearly that they played as a team with the same purpose and being of the same mind, they acted.

It is prudent to also acknowledge the effect on events such as the Renaissance on writers and scolars of the time and time following such events. The Renaissance re-introduced many elements of pagan thought and religion which did effect teachers and theologans of the time. Luther was writing in post Renaissance time and also to a population that was heavily influenced by Catholic teaching, as he was.

Bit of a case of finding what you're looking for when you have already made up your mind.

Rather than make analogies that don't quite fit the scriptures, why don't you put up a reasonable arguement as to who Jesus is in totality of what information the bible gives us?

For instance,

1. Explain what John meant when he said, The Word was God

2. How all things were made by him and how that relates to Gen 1.1 where, In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.

3. Explain how God said He would not share His glory with another yet Jesus clearly stated how He shared GLory with God.

4. How Jesus and the Father are one. YOur sports analogy might work, but with the rest of the scriptures that allude to Christ being God, there is much more than teamwork involved here.

5. Why Jesus said if you've seen me, you've seen the Father

6. How Jesus, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal to God.

7. Make all the scriptures inclusive concerning Jesus to give an air-tight answer. You'll find that there is much more than an architect and a house. You see, a house cannot create all things, have life in it, be one with the architect, equal to the architect, etc, etc.

Try these for starters and we'll see what transpires. Most non trinitarians will argue everything under the sun against trinitarianism except what the bible speaks directly to who Jesus is both pre-incarnate and incarnate. Your biggest challenge though is to dispute John 1.1 . Trinitarianism holds to numerically one God, so any attempts to impute polytheism does'nt work. And language is language, words that clearly put forth the authors thoughts. I'll post Roberston on John 1.1.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.



Joh 1:1 -
In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.

Was (ēn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).

The Word (ho logos). Logos is from legō, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logos is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikos logos for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Pro_8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John’s standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logos, but not John’s conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logos is applied to Christ only in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14; Rev_19:13; 1Jo_1:1 “concerning the Word of life” (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of “the Word of God” in Heb_4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Co_8:9; Phi_2:6.; Col_1:17) and in Heb_1:2. and in Joh_17:5. This term suits John’s purpose better than sophia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos “became flesh” (sarx egeneto, Joh_1:14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once.

With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1Jo_2:1 we have a like use of pros: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklēton echomen pros ton patera). See prosōpon pros prosōpon (face to face, 1Co_13:12), a triple use of pros. There is a papyrus example of pros in this sense to gnōston tēs pros allēlous sunētheias, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of pros here and in Mar_6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koiné, not old Attic. In Joh_17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (kai theos ēn ho logos). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos ēn ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and the predicate without it (theos) just as in Joh_4:24 pneuma ho theos can only mean “God is spirit,” not “spirit is God.” So in 1Jo_4:16 ho theos agapē estin can only mean “God is love,” not “love is God” as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in Joh_1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh,” not “the flesh became Word.” Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

 

[2ducklow]

Robertson, who wrote 47+ book on the greek language would not agree with your thoughts that the word was God in the same way as it was the divine word or your red car analogy.

well you have no rebutal for it other than to say Im not a greek scholar well neither are you so by your reasoning nothing you say amounts to diddly either.

I recall you have no formal education in the greek language? If I'm wrong

if you can't defeat their argument then just claim they don't know greek. wll you don't know greek either so by your unreasoning, you don't know diddly either.

robertson says elsewhere that theos has a qualitative aspect to it. others say it is qualitative. How it is qualitative is the question, and one who believes the word is literally Jesus is going to have a totally different idea as to how theos is qualitative than someone like myself who knows that Jesus isn't literally God's word.

Greek grammarians have classified nouns that denote nature or quality as "qualitative nouns," and many understand theos in John 1:1c to be a qualitative noun. P.B. Harner suggests "the Word had the same nature as God" as perhaps the most accurate way to render the meaning of qualitative theos in this verse into English (see the extended discussion, here). If the Sahidic noute ("G/god") in John 1:1c refers to the nature of the Logos, it provides evidence that translators working as early as the 3rd Century A.D. understood theos in John 1:1c to have a qualitative meaning; that is, that the Logos was with God, and shared His nature.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cach...john+1.1+qualitative&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

So even trinitarians , or at least some of them, see theos as qualitative. How they see it as being qualitative isn't qualitative, they are just redefining theos to mean god the son. that isn't qualitative. their doctrine has blinded their eyes to simple truth. first of all the above highly educated fella makes a big boo boo. he says the logos has the nature of god, but logos doesn't qualify god, god qualifies logos. so he should say, if he wants to make sense, that god has the nature of the logos. god is the qualitative predicate nominative not logos. but this highly educated fella makes a mistake a 2 yearold wouldn't make. well that's a bit of a hyperbole,


At any rate, and im not going to change your mind, your false assertion that we have no rationale for our understanding of how the word was god, is just that , a false assertion on your part that you have run away from. I explained very carefully how God qulafys word, and you just brushed it off with a statement to the effect that I ain't no scholar. you won't deal with my explanation other than to label it as not being a rational explanation. in other words its just your false unsupported accusation based on nothing but your contempt for non trintiarians.

 

[Beukeboom]

Trinitarian doctrine is not based in scripture but greek philosophy that took hold from the 2nd century.

No, my friend, you are confusing tri-theism (which is polytheistic) with Trinitarianism (which is monotheistic). Furthermore, it has been shown clearly via historical documents that the early church fathers espoused Trinitarianism as far back as the 1st century.

I suggest the following books on the Trinity:

"The Trinity: Evidence And Issues" by Robert Morey
"The Forgotten Trinity" by Dr. James R. White
"The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship" by Robert Letham
"God in Three Persons" by E. Calvin Beisner
"Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance" by Bruce A. Ware
"Trinity & Triunity: Salvation and the Nature of the Godhead" by E. Charles Heinze
"The Trinitarian Controversy" by William G. Rusch
"The Trinity" by Edward H. Bickersteth
"The Trinity In The New Testament" by Arthur W. Wainwright
"Making Sense of The Trinity" by Millard J. Erickson
"Our Triune God" by Peter Toon
"Why You Should Believe In The Trinity" by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

 

[Gary51]

Here is a very good book...

The Tyranny Of The Trinity, The Orthodox Cover-UP

By P.R Lackey